Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive694

Need page protection

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Pink_Taco_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ongoing WP:BLP, POV, unsourced, not RS from IPs in block. Sorry for the crosspost but RPP is backlogged. Gerardw (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like two of us semi-protected at the same time. In any case, it's done. --John (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mtking

I need administrative attention concerning an editor User:Mtking who has been trying to prevent me from completing two articles that I created. I just started and 5 minutes later he is tagging the page with no regard to policy for explanation, attempts to edit war with me, and has been distracting me for hours over issues concerning an article that is listed as under-construction. You can read the whole thing on his talk page [1] This guy's biting is out of control! --Rainman64 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also pretty sure this guy just did something to my internet... Is this Wikipedia or a battlefield???--Rainman64 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also appears that he has help from other editors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainman64 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a editor by the name of GoodVac is acting along with MtKing [what reason they are trying their best to have me blocked just for editing a simple article]. Is there something here that I don't know?--Rainman64 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking has continued in constant disruptive editing in order to prevent me from make these articles stable. I've been trying to work with the guy but he is doing everything in his power to get the pages down before they were technically up for one reason or another. I really don't know what going on here but I need some serious help here.--Rainman64 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mtking (talk · contribs) isn't the problem. Although he has made numerous CSD errors resulting from hasty tagging, I see nothing untoward with his edits at UIS (company), Paul Dorian, the AfD, and the talk page discussion (besides the COI thing).
  On the other hand, Rainman64 (talk · contribs) has a suspicious history. He made his first edit in February, creating this odd template. User returned this month to create UIS (company) and Paul Dorian. Engaging in the discussion with Mtking, Rainman64 spouted several policies, guidelines, and other Wikipedia terms and acronyms, such as WP:NPP, WP:BITE, WP:THREATEN, WP:OVERTAGGING, etc. It is highly unlikely that a new user would have such an unusual knack for these terms. Goodvac (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That wrong Goodvac. First from the links I posted before on you and Mtking its safe to say you don't exactly have a unbias opinion here. Second, Mtking did everything wrong for start... He shouldn't have tag these articles that quickly... he did both in 1 minute. You can't read both in a minute or check the sources! He shouldn't have overtagged the page... plus, he should have said something in detail about what actually in the article was the problems... you know for example... this paragraph here sounds like or word there makes this look like. That way I could at least correct exact what the problem was. But had me doing guess work on things that might be giving off those impressions. I asked him repeatedly to explain and never added to the talk page or gave any detail of his view. In addition, every time I added or made changes to the article to improve it I assume that would do the job for the tags but he kept posting it back on the page without explanation... he was clearly baiting me into somekind of edit-war, but he didn't know I was reading the previous post from his talk page. They mentioned bitey and the link and I went from there.--Rainman64 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on Goodvac, I did most of these pages in the preview edit option I post it to save and start doing the rest of the research and writing, but while I was 5 minutes later I'm debates with him over issues that I was still working on. So I post the under-construction sign to let him know to give time and patience but he obviously couldn't handle that. Look at this guy's history he goes around deleting article after article. He's doing so right now... so when he came upon the ones I was doing he wanted the same thing for them. I tried to do things like Wikipedia states so I asked him help me improve the articles and he just wasn't interested in helping, only deleting. Right now I have information that verifies the notability of Paul Dorian linked to the article. I also pointed this out to Mtking, but he went for delete anyway without completing the discussion with me. I'm sorry but what he did was very wrong. The least he could have do was withdraw the deletion on the grounds of the new evidence and help gather more but like I said before that's not his goal.Rainman64 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the articles let's talk Notability policy. I'm not finished with these articles, I was interrupted very early in its development. However, there is at least one obviously notable fact on both. That Dorian and the company are currently listed among Silicon Valley's Top 40 under 40 according to the Business Journal. That is an honor and achievement of which they were nominated and received credit for from a nationally respected business publication.

So my question is... If policy on Wikipedia states that "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." is considered notable then shouldn't their honor above prove a level of notability enough to stop or delay deletion?Rainman64 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the particular article here, a lesson I learned long ago is generally not to develop an article in mainspace. Set up a sandbox or create it first as a subpage of your user page. Work on it there in relative peace, polish it up until it is ready for release into mainspace, then release it. The better an article you can write, the less likely it is to get tagged. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I kinda wish someone would answer my question... Also I noticed something untrue on this deletion page that Mtking is try to claim as fact.... So let's set the record straight, I'm not Paul Dorian and this account isn't one purpose.... these articles just happened to be my first edits that User:Mtking is trying to use to in his own favor. I have no conflicts of interest besides the fact that I want to close Mtking's account. After all he seems to be trying everything possible to close mine. Plus, he recklessly ignored WP:NPP that says that "Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author." Check out his User talk:Mtking; he ignored every attempt to work with me... and all this happened in just a few hours... starting 5 minutes after I started writing these articles. At this point I'm interested in making sure this guy gets justice on him for toxic behavior. Rainman64 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UIS (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• comment - this just seems like a overspill content issue. I don't see as Rainman has done anything wrong and as a newish user creating content he requires more assistance than anything else. The articles have been nominated for deletion so lets see how it goes. Should the two AFD discussions be merged into one like that? Please ease up on the WP:BITE and WP:COI stuff, many users come and write stuff they are closely connected to - its not a wiki-crime and actually is the way a large part of the wikipedia got written. I suggest ya all take a step back and focus on the content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• comment looks like MtKing is a new user him/herself? This account only goes back to March 2011. MajorTsoris (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Need page protection

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Pink_Taco_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ongoing WP:BLP, POV, unsourced, not RS from IPs in block. Sorry for the crosspost but RPP is backlogged. Gerardw (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like two of us semi-protected at the same time. In any case, it's done. --John (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues at Tommy Norment - sanity check

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding a paragraph of negative content to a BLP article on a Virginia politician, Tommy Norment. My analysis is that the content is an improper synthesis as well as violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The one legitimate source he uses does not actually support the proposition he cites it for. My inclination was to revert the edit again and block the user for BLP and edit warring violations. However, as there is some attempt to source this content, I thought I would come here for a sanity check before I crossed the 3RR Rubicon myself.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Looked like a dump of libelous information with unclear relation to the subject [2]. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he just needed someone to give him some helpful advice on how to better contribute to the Wiki. Let's hope my suggestion helps him become a more constructive editor. If anyone can think of anything else to add, please feel free to do so. This appears to be a case of an inexperienced editor just running into trouble with the special rules regarding BLPs, so maybe he can better edit elsewhere. --Tathar (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi - by User:Sempi

• Sempi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see history of the RFC page. User was warned on their talk page to stop, user continues disruption (ongoing) anyhow. Continues to post in the inappropriate section, including violation of site policy by attempts at outing. A block is in order here, if anything simply to stop the outing violation. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Already blocked, by Dcoetzee (talk · contribs), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)

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.

Further discussion at this point serves no purpose. The ban discussion has been made moot by what appears to be something like a return to normality (there is an ongoing Arbcom discussion to confirm). It's in the interests of all to see if this mess can be left behind, which means giving the user a certain chance, under the new account (User:Barong), to show that they can get along. Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

While there was an active ANI thread about the behaviour of 125.162.150.88 (talk), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Editing_from_125.162.150.88_.28Jack_Merridew.29, the IP was blocked for edit warring on Template talk:Rescue [3]. After not editing for a few days, the IP has gone back to similar behaviour:

• 4RR on Template talk:Rescue [4]
• See also: [5] [6]

This IP is apparently an editor who was previously banned by arbcom for harassing editors Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick and for socking Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Request_for_clarification_and_indefinite_block_of_Moby_Dick.2C_April-May_2007. The user was unbanned Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion under an agreement. The IP withdrew that agreement [7]. (Under the agreement he was allowed to edit from only one account, User:Jack Merridew. See also [8].)

This editor attempts to cloud the issues by claiming everyone else is harassing him, eg Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive692#Sortable_tables_RFC and [9]. Pursuant to [10] I have not notified the IP of this particular thread; the previous thread was only recently archived [11].

Although ArbCom is discussing this User_talk:Risker#User:125.162.150.88, User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Jack_.3B.29, enough is enough. Propose community ban. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG for all the insistent detractors would be the proper outcome for this. Gimme should be de-sysoped as unfit. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

• Oppose community ban. From what I've seen Merridew is more hasslee than hassler. Reyk _YO! 04:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew Let arbcom handle it, they unbanned Merridew, and imposed the account restriction he now seems to be disregarding. They get to clean up the mess. Chester Markel (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• I don't claim that stuff like [12] is acceptable behavior, though. Chester Markel (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Some examples of his comments include:

as an unhelpful idiot; further rationale on my talk. Vulcans are supposed to have some sense, and SoV wadded-in on the side of teh toxic trolls infesting this site.

rv fuckwit; ya, you trolls have outted me)

His comments are not helpful toward building the encyclopedia and he appears to be trying to be semi-anonymous when acting as an IP, making inside jokes with his friends and then loudly claiming outing when anyone points out his publically known identity. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted above by Chester, Jack has also willingly decided to over-rule the Arbcom restriction, by his own words. Silverseren^C 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Without going into the specifics of this particular case, the Arbitration Committee will rarely stand in the way of a community decision to remove an editor from the project. Risker (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  But you'll stand in the way of a cluful editor who called you on your bad block of GregJackP and make a plain allusion to privileged information while warning me off. Jack 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk)

• Regardless of the ban proposal though, what is Arbcom's response to Jack saying that he won't be following the restriction? Silverseren^C 05:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as he's evading his ban. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• He can't be evading a ban, as he isn't banned. He is merely restricted to editing from one account. Silverseren^C 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well then, ban him for continuing disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban per Silver seren, subject to reversal if checkuser indicates this isn't him. No need to allow Merridew to continue his attacks. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I am aware, User:Jack Merridew is not banned. His main account is indeffed because it was compromised, so even if it is him it is impossible for him to comply with the arbcom restriction to edit from "Jack Merridew" only. N419BH 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The edit restriction is to edit from a single account, not the Jack Merridew one. So, thus far, in editing just from his static IP, he has been following the restrictions. But now he made a comment to the case section that he is refusing to follow them, which presumably means he is now making other accounts. Silverseren^C 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• The restriction limits him to the account Jack Merridew by name, with the exception of an approved bot account. His main account was editing on March 26, so checkuser might be able to determine if it was really compromised, or just assumed to be because of extremely disruptive editing. But if a compromised account were the only issue, he could have created a new one such as "Jack Merridew II" to comply with the arbcom decision to the best of his ability, and refrained from characterising editors as "fuckwits"[13] and such. His recent contributions have been most unhelpful. Chester Markel (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is a sad situation where an intelligent and potentially valuable editor with truly disruptive tendencies has managed to garner a lot of friends in high places due to his good aspects; which can be quite excellent. Those that have experienced and know his bad aspects are often at odds with his supporters: like we're talking about two different people . But there's no separating the good from the bad; and multiple editors have not been "harassing" him - that's absurd. It is ultimately ArbCom's call at this point, so I personally think a community ban proposal here is doomed. His increased negativity, game playing and marked incivility, especially over the last several months, has been unfortunate indeed. Doc talk 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  "sad"? "unfortunate"? Bullshit, you want more than anything to get me. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Look at the links to the off-wiki stuff. There's definite harassment and attempted, detailed outing there. N419BH 05:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Then he should have privately contacted arbcom, if the material could have been shown to originate from present editors. There's no justification for swearing at and insulting everyone. This needs to stop. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)What off-wiki stuff? Are you referring to the link to a webpage made 6 months ago that he mentions himself [14] as a smear? He has posted on the Wikipedia the claim that his real name is "David", that part of one of the names of one of his socks even. And does anyone believe that's a real picture of him? Where would they find it at? Did he create that "smear" page himself, to then blame others for making it? Dream Focus 05:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree that the IP is running afoul of WP:NPA. No comment on the rest of it. A checkuser is not going to confirm whether or not an IP and a named account are related, as that would be a form of outing. I'm having a hard time judging this whole situation. N419BH 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • In that case, almost every participant in this thread would have to be blocked for "outing". The policy does not support such a spurious result: Merridew does not get to edit via IP, then claim that any linkage of the IP and his account via checkuser violates his privacy. The privilege of concealing one's IP address only applies to editors who take measures to avoid public disclosure, by editing through named accounts only. Chester Markel (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
        • He has openly admitted that it's him several times: this is not an imposter. Doc talk 06:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I cannot comment on that. Although any IP can say they're anyone; it's a frequent tactic used by trolls. N419BH 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree. Let's block the IP now for either being Jack Merridew, and disruptively editing, or impersonating an editor. The remainder of the issue can be sorted out when the accounts are linked via checkuser, great similarity in editing styles, or some other means. Chester Markel (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
              • It is the same person. He admits it. His close friends and non-friends alike know that it's him. The IP is in freaking Bali. Mystery solved. Doc talk 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm fairly certain it's him based on behavior pattern. Just playing devil's advocate for the rest. Nothing is confirmed here, we're still basing everything on speculation. N419BH 06:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I realized who he was after his 26th edit and told him so. This was inspired by this, BTW. And, as I pointed out on another page, "See also: Lord of teh Flies"[15] on the RfA reform board isn't exactly hiding in plain sight. To claim "outing" after you said that, well... Doc talk 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • That one's in the checkuser policies. They won't publicly connect a specific IP to a named account. They might connect a large range, an ISP, or a geographic range. But revealing a specific IP could be used to determine the person's real life identity. N419BH 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                      • This situation does not require CU assistance. Doc talk 07:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
                        • But what if it did? Is this the new way to sock Wikipedia: edit from an IP, secure in the knowledge that Checkusers will never connect it to a named account, notwithstanding that the IP is already disclosed when one is editing with it? Then such cases might have to be referred to arbcom, and the IP/accounts blocked with "please contact the Arbitration Committee" to avoid publicly associating the sock with the sockmaster. That sort of thing foists an impossible workload upon the arbitrators. If the privacy policy really is so twisted, which I doubt, then it urgently needs to be changed. Chester Markel (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see this recent statement from the AUSC. Risker (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a whole lot more complicated than some guy editing from his IP. If you really want to get the full perspective you'd better start looking through all the arbitration proceedings and ANI threads that have affected Jack and his sock drawer over the years. You'll also need to look through the contributions of the IP. For admins, this will be a bit easier as Jack had links to them in his now deleted userpage. There is a ton of information to digest. Some of it is good, some of it is bad. The whole thing makes me believe that this particular thread is missing the boat. There's a whole lot more going on here, both good and bad, that the regular ANI reader doesn't know. This is really one for the Arbitration Committee to handle. N419BH 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support His recent actions alone are justification for his banning. Dream Focus 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ban evasion isn't an issue here, as none of his accounts was banned, and the decision to limit him to one account is not really being violated in spirit, if perhaps it is in letter (per those above). It's his behaviour right now that's the real issue, with his outpouring of profanity directed at others, and this is going to eventually net him a ban if he keeps it up. I'm not in favour of a ban for the time being, since the normal results of this sort of incivility would be a short block, but I'm quite sure he will get banned if he keeps this up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Merridew's incivility does not occur on a blank slate. It needs to be considered in the context of the prior history of disruption which required Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion to be decided at all. Chester Markel (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But isn't deceiving the community via dodging scrutiny by using IPs an issue? How can WP:CLEANSTART apply here when we well know who this is? The only other question is, why is this being done? I am not going to pry, but I can see why this is irking quite a few people. –MuZemike 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scuttled" is listed as the userpage for the accounts. And clean start doesn't appear to be being invoked as the IP claims to be Jack. N419BH 06:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He claims to be Jack only when it suits him: otherwise it's off to the false outing/harassment claims. Who removes a SPI notification with, "rm wp:hounding"? Are editors supposed to know it's him, and not to "hound" him with standard notifications? Or what? Doc talk 08:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, I'd have the same thought except that he's self-identified as Jack Merridew, which means no deception. If he's previously been less than upfront about it, as some here have suggested (I haven't seen the whole history), then yes, that's a definite strike against him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack's been very open about his past. N419BH 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as the committee is discussing this, is there an urgent need for admin action right now? Let Arbcom earn their inflated salaries. pablo 11:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  See also

  {{stuck}}: teh ac doesn't usually resolve disputes, it prolongs them. The emergence of the ARS is due to the failure of the two E&C cases. The 2005-ac borked my initial case with white cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Propose a temporary prohibition on his unregistered editing to go along with the one-account restriction. Should put a dampner on all this is-he-isn't-he disruption. Pick an account and stick to it, and let it be a record of your actions that you may be held accountable by, like the rest of us. Skomorokh 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support community ban explicitly set to terminate if ArbComm determines new conditions under which the individual involved is allowed to edit and the individual complies with all initial conditions set by ArbComm. This more or less resets the situation to where it was before he was previously unbanned by ArbComm, since his own actions to compromise his own account made the previous ruling nonfunctional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. A little recent history here. Recently David applied to have the last of his Arbcom restrictions lifted Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Further discussion and was treated rather poorly. Note in particular Coren's remarks. After this he decided to withdraw his services, a la John Galt. He quit using the Jack acct, switched to the Gold Hat account. No one blocked him for doing this. People on the arbitration committee knew that Gold Hat was David; I told Elen so myself. Fast forward a bit, to the discussion on My76Strat's talk page after his failed RFA. David makes a pointy edit that not only is RFA "borked", so is Arbcom. Elen eventually blocks him for repeatedly re-inserting this post. Apparently she thought it was just some random troll. Had she already forgotten who Gold Hat is? This was a bad block because the post was not vanalism or a personal attack. Meanwhile no decision is forthcoming as to whether David is to be permanently tied to the Jack Merridew account. Why on earth would he want to be tied to that account, when there are at least two libellous pages tying the Jack Merridew account to his real life identity elsewhere on the web? I would swear a bit too if that happened to me, trust me on this. But recent threads have proven though that swearing alone is not a blockable offense, much less reason for a ban. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. I don't know Jack very well but I'm well aware of who he is. If he had come to Wikipedia with the expressed intent to restart his Wikipedia activity in a civil manner, from a new registered account (and only one account) I'd support that. But he's being openly defiant, he doesn't want to abide by the terms set when his previous ban was lifted even in spirit, let alone by the letter. His present behavior does more harm to Wikipedia than good. Much of what he's doing right now just boils down to a violation of WP:POINT, specifically where he says, "The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle." While the statement is true, this kind of activism isn't going to help anything. -- Atama頭 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban He is again, or is it still, thumbing his nose at everyone. He purposefully killed his two accounts and now he is playing games with everyone. This is ridiculous already, enough is enough, CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As per my usual position about draconian solutions. A "ban" is precisely the wrong sort of way to handle Merridew at best. Collect (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and immediately overturn block. Read the Arbcom restriction again. Jack is restricted to one named account "Jack Merridew". There is no restriction regarding editing "anonymously" from IPs. He's not socking if he isn't editing from named accounts. Furthermore, Jack has no access to "Jack Merridew" as he scrambled the password to it. All this was done as a result of an Arbcom decision to keep his editing restrictions in place indefinitely. Those restrictions stem from a 2005 arbcom case which was later proven to be messed up. Jack's been fighting his way back ever since. I think in light of these circumstances the fact that the committee hasn't accepted over two years of mostly stellar editing and has kept him restricted would make one just a wee bit upset, no? Civility issues yes, but nothing to warrant an indef. block. And he isn't violating any restrictions by editing from the IP. And we don't block IPs indefinitely. And he's stated that IP is a public wifi hotspot. So he's not the only one who might try to edit from it. Unblock the IP and let arbcom handle it. N419BH 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See below, Arbcom have dealt with it; they unbanned him under an agreement he explicitly broke. IP editing has nothing to do with it – he is community banned. Skomorokh 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, per Diannaa and Arbcom's general ongoing mishandling/ignoring of this situation  pablo 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - It seems as if Jack Merridew has decided that rules don't apply to him, that's the subtext not only of this particular set of incidents, but of his long editing career under previous IDs. I understand that some folks think that he is a good, or even excellent, content provider. I cannot gainsay them, since I've never looked into his contributions in that way, but I have no reason to believe that they're not correct. If so, then it's a shame that an editor who is otherwise such a benefit to the project seems to be constitutionally unable to act within the confines of the boundaries that the community has set up for itself, either directly or through their elected representatives. Jack has been given many chances to show that he wants to be a viable part of the community, and his ultimate response has been to thumb his nose at us each time. I don't believe it's any longer worthwhile to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• support ban Jack doesn't play well with others. There was an attempted deal that might have maybe had a chance to work. He's stated explicitly that he's not interested in that. This is enough already. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Enough BS already; I've read the sub-threads below as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just your average WP:DIVA. He's already getting too much attention here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • fyi, I was involved in the issues that were the impetus of that essay, although it wasn't directed at me ;) Barong 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - and I agree with User:Diannaa's comments above. One of the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions was "2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing" which he complied with, and over the course of more than a year made thousands of edits that benefited the project. Then when he sought to have his restrictions lifted, he was treated shabbily and it seemed to me that reference to the Gold Hat account was flimsy and opportunistic. If he was, at that point, such a threat to the project, there should have been something stronger to point at than Gold Hat; Gold Hat's contributions were minor and innocuous, but rather than look at the good Jack Merridew had done, Gold Hat was the focus. If Arbcom was aware of the Gold Hat account and did nothing, couldn't that be interpreted as not opposing it? It would have been fairer on Jack if Gold Hat had not been permitted to edit from the start. If I was in his situation I'd feel angry and betrayed, and if that's what he's feeling, that's what's being seen in his recent edits. Rossrs (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Jack has wilfully defied what he agreed to with the Arbitration Committee. The restriction is incredibly clear- one account and one account only. No Gold Hat, no IP editing. One account, and the name of that account must be Jack Merridew. Given his knowing disregard of that restriction, there is no other option- if you agree to clear set of unban conditions with the ArbCom, you must either keep them or be rebanned. --Courcelles 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  it is inappropriate to tie me to things such as http://www.pissitupthewall.com/2010/11/wikipedia-lock-your-kids-up.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per N419BH and Diannaa, but implore Jack to stop the outbursts before he digs himself into an even deeper hole. -- œ^™ 08:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Just the past week's pattern of grotesque incivility and personal attacks on other users and even an admin should be enough for a ban. However based on his history of wikihounding other editors with whom he has issues with, massive sockpuppetry, and routine incivility in edit summaries and talk page comments, it's mind-boggling to me that he's getting any support whatsoever. At no point has he been apologetic about past or current actions, and he seems to believe that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. It's time to end this toxicity.Shemeska (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Shemeska (user contributions), I'm curious to know what brings you here. Aside from 2 updates to your user page, your last contribution to Wikipedia was this comment at ANI also about Jack Merridew on 7 June 2010, which was your only edit for 2010 outside of your user page. You comment about "fellow travellers (who) defend (Jack) at each step of the way". Quite hypocritical, considering that your next edit, almost a year later is this one in which you join in with "the fellow travellers" who wish to see Jack Merridew banned. You're absent for almost a year and then when Jack's in trouble, not only do you know about it, but you feel compelled to comment upon it, while your interest in Wikipedia aside from Jack, appears currently to be zero. Well, I feel compelled to comment on someone who appears to be wanting to just join a lynch mob, but otherwise have no stake in the outcome. ANI should not be about people taking sides and casting votes to make up numbers, and I can't see anything more than that in your participation. I am curious how you knew about this ANI, and why in 2 years of editing, your edits consist of only 4 edits (2 adjustments to your user page, and 2 ANI comments supporting a ban of Jack Merridew.) Why are you so interested in Jack? Rossrs (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. (@Shemeska: and you seem to believe that there's a special rule about the heinousness of being rude to admins. "Massive" sockpuppetry? Oh, get a grip.) I expect it's too late: a new Peter Damian case (and what a waste was that?) seems to be already taking shape. The "Jack Merridew" case is all about timing: with exceptionally poor timing at the ban review motion, as if expressly chosen to humiliate a proud user, Risker and Coren expressed intolerant resentment of Jack's "defiance", of "thumbing one's nose", and "horsing around with collections of accounts" (yes? so? would you like to look Bishzilla in the eye and repeat that?).[16][17] I notice Atama and ChronieGal happily adopting these expressions above — altogether, this poll reminds me of the IRC discussions amongst poorly informed users I've listened to, of all the triumphs we can easily and cheaply enjoy against Peter Damian, heh heh. Risker's point that she would have been prepared to lift Jack's remaining restrictions if only it weren't for his "defiance" is downright depressing.[18] What kind of time was the ban review "Jack" had requested to say that? It was too late, as Elen of the Roads pointed out: "Jack" was already expecting the sanctions to be lifted, he had no reason not to expect it.[19] Because those sanctions were vestigial, they seemed to have no other purpose than to humiliate an annoyingly non-humble editor. So is that what the arbcom is about: humiliation? No, I don't think that. I think they do their best. Some of them merely suffered a disastrous failure of imagination in this case. :-( "Jack"'s anger and disappointment at this point is understandable; and, sadly, having been fucked over, he went on to angrily misbehave. He's doing the digging himself, which is why I fear a continued downward spiral, but certainly it was arbcom that handed him a spade and encouraged him to use it. P.S. I would take it as a personal favour if the users who are all over this thread — you know who you are — would rein themselves in a little. Do you really have the impression that your input here is winning hearts and minds by sheer vindictive repetition? Bishonen | talk 14:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC).
• Hold/Pause until this has been clarified. (thanks Sko). I did notice that the language from 125.whatever.whatever.88 got a bit OTT rough around the edges recently, but it seems there's enough confusion here to frustrate just about anyone. It's been a while, but IIRC, "Jack" was/can be quite a valuable content contributor, even though I seem to remember that he could stir up some ka ka from time to time. However, I don't ever recall him stating that he was out to "bring down WP" a la PD.— Ched :  ?  16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the Arbs aren't going to answer that [technical] question. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per Courcelles and Shemeska, among others. This is an ugly mess, and I understand the opposers concerns, but from what I have read in this too-long thread, it appears that this editor is abusive and proud of it, not to mention flouting ArbCom. Long history of violations and personal attacks. Let's pull the plug here and now, as I am tired of this kind of user who pushes others away from the project. Not convinced banning an IP is bad either. Jusdafax 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. Guaranteed in a year, Jack will try to come back yet again to game the system with sympathetic arbcoms willing to give him yet another chance. Jack gets off-wiki blowback because he has a long history of being nasty to editors. Okip 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. I've never been able to understand why this person hasn't been banned and why they have been continually allowed to periodically show up and disrupt the project. If they really wanted a clean start and were going to play by the rules, they could have returned as an IP or new account, followed the rules and never been noticed. This has never happened, as they continually fall far short of acceptable behavior eventually. A community ban would let any editor revert unaccceptable behavior on sight. Such threads as this overlong nightmare will disappear, leaving only the occasional blip when someone acknowledges "Jack was here, blocked indef as sock of banned user, thread closed". Let him get his jollies elsewhere. Whatever he might contribute in worthwhile content is not worth his continued disruptive presence here. Heiro 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if it's still being considered given Rd232's offer below and Jack's acceptance of it. As he has agreed to "register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account" this seems like a reasonable way to meet the spirit of his ArbCom restriction (until and unless ArbCom says it isn't.) 28bytes (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, largely per Bishonen above. The whole story of the lifting the old sanctions, not lifting them, re-imposing them, protesting against them, trolling against them, replacing them with new ones, etc etc ad infinitum, has only been a perpetuated drama for drama's sake, and bears no relation to the actual, productive editing that we have seen from Jack in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Barong/Jack Merridew is an excellent contributor who definitely has a clue. We want to be retaining editors like him, not saddling them with useless restrictions. He has more than made up for past transgressions, and ArbCom's reticence in removing the sanctions makes no sense. If you muzzle anyone too long without need they're going to act out. Please don't drive off another good editor. AniMate 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I fail to see the reason to ban him. He has been open about who he is and tbh his incivility isn't that bad yet. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, and recommend that this discussion be closed. This thread in no way resembles a reasoned, balanced discussion about the merits of Jack's participation in this project. AGK [•] 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban Continuing and recent bad behaviour including edit warring using multiple identities, gross incivility, harassment and canvassing. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban: as my momma said, if you surround yourself with people like that, you're bound to turn into them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  I liked Support ban worse than Sauron, better. See also: Rangda ;> Barong 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thread's dead, baby. Thread's dead.
  (although it's really helpful for the battleground-types to self-identify;) Barong 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In violation of unbanning conditions?

The history is a little convoluted, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion seems to indicate that Jack Merridew's original ban was lifted with this condition:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.

The amendment to this augmented the condition as follows:

User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

As his February 2011 request for amendment failed, and he subsequently withdrew agreement to the above conditions, it seems to me as if he is editing in violation of the unbanning conditions and therefore banned. Am I missing something? Skomorokh 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; that's why I was confused when I started reading this ANI. Why are these motions being tried again here when a ban is already in force? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He posted his password, thereby corrupting the Jack Merridew account. Nobody put a gun to his head. People don't do that by accident - it's your password. By doing that he willfully broke the binding agreement to edit only under the Jack Merridew account on March 25, well before his declaration of withdrawal as an IP. Is the AC agreement binding? Doc talk 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a ArbCom motion which was passed by 9 arbitrators at the time, so yes. An indefinite block would be replaced on the main account, but obviously, that's a bit confusing given it wasn't the main account which prompted this. (Additionally, main account was blocked in March as "compromised account"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed on this point. Skomorokh 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since ArbCom couldn't make a consistent or intelligible statement regarding the Gold Hat account (first it was deemed OK then a few weeks later it was a "bad idea"), I have little faith that any "clarification" from them is going to do more than further muddy the waters. Assuming they succeed in putting together something that's not blatantly self-contradictory. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked for several reasons - recent disruptive behavior, personal attacks [20], the likelyhood that he's now violating the prior arbcom findings, the apparent likelyhood that he's going to be community banned in the section above.

Subject to usual community review etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the right call. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

He has specifically stated that he will no longer be following the restriction. For all we know, he could already have another account up and running, if not more. Furthermore, it is a common fact that we generally block people when they made statements saying that they plan on making disruptive actions in the future and Jack has specifically stated that he has decided not to follow the restriction anymore, thus this, combined with his other recent actions, show that he has become overly disruptive. And an indefinite block is not forever, GWH specifically stated that it is until Arbcom makes a decision or until this community ban proposal is decided. This is to mitigate the disruption that Jack has already been showing. Silverseren^C 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An appropriate block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not appropriate. At best it's incompetent. Please read WP:IPBLENGTH. Any administrator worth their salt knows that we only indefinitely block IP addresses in extreme circumstances. Perhaps a block was warranted, but this isn't the way to do it. Even should the community decide the public hot spot IP Jack is using needs to be indefinitely blocked, there are templates that should be placed so it can be tracked because indefinitely blocking IPs is so rare. That didn't happen either. Even rookie admins know better. AniMate 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then can you fix the block so that it's still a block, but in the proper format for IP addresses? That shouldn't be too difficult to do. Silverseren^C 02:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the format, it's the length (or lack thereof) that's the problem. We only indefinitely block IPs in extreme circumstances, usually because they're an open proxy. Also, I don't think I should be the admin to deal with this block. I've had too many negative experiences with most of the complainers above and agree with too many of jack's positions. If anything, I'd prefer to give him a warning or block for a month. AniMate 02:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked the IP. Firstly civility blocks don't work and the length is way inappropriate to the offence. Secondly an indef block for a public ip is not an acceptable policy based action, thirdly I am not seeing a clear consensus to ban Jack above so blocking the ip for that reason at this stage is inappropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that you did not, as required, discuss the unblock with the blocking admin before undoing it, rather unblocked first and then told him that you had done it. Bad form, very bad form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

George hasn't responded to the comments on his talk so it clearly offline. We shouldn't ready do controversial blocks if we are not here to discuss them afterwards so I didn't feel that leaving a token message or waiting for him to come back was appropriate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, no one can ever do a "controversial block" if they aren't planning on being online for the next 12 hours or so?

Further, unblocking on the basis that "Civility blocks don't work" has nothing whatsoever to do with policy, and everything to do with your own personal opinion. You are free to have that opinion, and to avoid making civility blocks because of it, but it's not policy, and it's certainly not a reason to overturn another admin's block, especially without discussing it first. Your action was neither collegial nor appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither was the original block but we can leave a public ip blocked while we sit around waiting for George to come on line shall we? I'd be less inclined to unblock if it was a user account block but for an indef of an ip? No that's perfectly justifiable to act without waiting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that you investigated and determined that others beside Jack have been using this IP lately, and so are acting to protect their access to Wikipeia.

You did do that, didn't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good unblock. Clearly the right thing to do. Reyk _YO! 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he or is he not in violation of the AC agreement? Has it expired? Is it being ignored by the AC as well as Jack? We all have to follow rules around here, despite what IAR is often misinterpreted to mean. When you're on a restriction you abide by it, you don't play pointy games and make up your own version of the rules. Doc talk 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that he is. Reyk _YO! 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? I know that you've defended Jack in the past (from a quick search I just did), so without any explanation for your current comments, it looks as if you are just repeating over and over that Jack didn't do anything wrong without actually looking at or considering exactly what he has done wrong. Silverseren^C 04:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)How do you figure? He deliberately corrupted the accounts after his bid for a sock cavalcade fell through. Mind you, he said just two months ago, "These accounts are my history, and I'm not seeking to walk away from them."[21] Then he found out he couldn't have his socks. This horseplop about him being ashamed of what others say about him off-wiki is just ridiculous. His ED page has been up for ages. Doc talk 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's stated that he's not going to comply with the unban conditions, and he's engaged in extreme uncivility. This shouldn't be that complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock confusion

I am somewhat confused on the unblock here.

I was online for some hours after issuing the block, contrary to Spartaz' comments. N419BH asked me to consider reversal and I did not respond to him, but that does not mean that I didn't read or consider his comment. N419BH made similar ANI comments before regarding Jack and they had been addressed in the discussion about the ban (and otherwise) above already. Nothing novel was in the unblock request other than that this was "Unblock him" rather than "Don't ban him". Admins are required to be engaged, but we're not required to respond to *everything*...

The unblock was apparently 9 hrs later. No, I wasn't online for 9 hrs after issuing it. Not a reasonable expectation.

The unblock seems to have hinged on three alleged flaws; one, that there was no consensus to ban Jack, two, that this was alledgedly a civility block, and three, that this was a permanent block on an IP. None of these was true.

This was a block for all of:

1. No personal attacks
2. Disruption
3. Violation of editing restrictions

The personal attack was clearly a personal attack - the exact phrase was "Oppose as an unhelpful idiot". This is not a civility issue, it's a personal attack. NPA is NPA.

A very large number of editors and admins have commented that his recent behavior was disruptive.

While there is still active debate about whether he's violating the editing restrictions, there is a majority opinion that he was. I don't know that it rises to the level of consensus, but it clearly has more "He's violating" than the alternative.

Regarding the unblock reasons -

1. There was an 8-2 expressed support-oppose opinion balance at the time of block, with significant additional discussion that by editor count was similiarly 75% plus supporting ban.
2. I used the phrase "personal attack" in the block message [22]. Civility was not mentioned once.
3. This was not a permanent block on an IP. It was an indefinite block, and I quote, "Until the situation is clarified with regards to a community ban, Arbcom decides to do something, or another administrator decides to override based on their review of the situation.". It was indefinite to indicate that it was not a short-term bandaid, not to violate our permanent blocks on IP addresses policy. In cases where IPs are effectively uniquely identified to a known problem user we're allowed to bend the IP block policy in any case, but in this one it was certainly acceptable to leave it "To be determined" while the rest of the above were sorted out. If you feel that it's grossly inappropriate to do so under the IP blocking policy, I ask that you explain how you think we're going to enact a ban if one is consensused-upon above? Do you think we can't ban him if he only uses IPs now?

Spartaz - The best practice here is to try to discuss with the blocking admin, or if that fails to get consensus on a noticeboard that the block was improper. We don't mandate that, but we do ask for admins to use due care and good judgement when acting otherwise. It does not appear to me that you used due care and judgement here.

I appreciate Jack's long constructive history as much as anyone else, but bending the rules to let him keep abusing people when he's clearly started doing so and indicated he has no interest in stopping was not a good call. Had the block actually clearly violated policy you could have gotten a solid consensus on that here within minutes. That the opposite happened should be an indication that this was a bad unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• It was a bad block for a start. You don't indef people while a ban discussion is in place and you should know by now that we don't indef IPs without a very good reason and calling Sarek an idiot is far from a good enough reason for that. Your whole argument presupposes that there is widespread support for a block and there wasn't. Blocking while there is an ongoing discussion is just bad manners and substitutes your opinion for a forming consensus.We already know that you are pretty much the most extreme proponent of the civility block here and that your opinion does not therefore represent a community consensus. You should have proposed the block before enacting it and then listening to consensus on it. There was no justification for acting unilaterally when there was already a discussion in place. I don't see a consensus to ban and 70-80% including a number of very involved editors is far from a consensus for a community ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to avoid "very involved editors" - the closing admin is supposed to factor in prior entanglements, but that does not mean or equate to disenfranchising those with prior negative interactions with the potential banee.

Blocking while a community discussion is in place is like blocking while an arbcom case is in discussion - unusual, but not unheard of. Both happen. I have done both, without any being challenged that I can recall. Being the subject of an arbcom case or a community ban discussion is in no way a get out of jail free card that allows people to disrupt or make personal attacks or violate existing sanctions or other policy. We are obviously and carefully conscious of not keeping people from participating in discussions on their own fate, but that doesn't mean they can do anything they want and get away with it.

I do not understand how you can look at the discussion above and feel that I am adopting a particularly extreme position with regards to Jack here. There's clearly a consensus that Jack's being abusive and has violated policy in several ways. Whether that results in a ban or not is up to the community, who are still arguing over it. Many of those advocating not banning have advocated blocking for the recent events.

Again - You're making up straw man arguments that you allege are why I blocked, which are not what I blocked for, and not what I said I blocked for. You seem to be the only person disputing that the stated arguments are valid. A number of persons disagree with banning him for them, but you seem to be saying "No, they don't count at all", which does not seem at all reasonable.

I'm all for having uninvolved admins review and use their judgement, but there's something wrong here. I am not going to do any wheel-warring of any sort. Would you please disqualify yourself as well from any further action and step back, and let others handle this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we indefinitely blocking IPs now?

This is an astonishing bit of overkill. We don't block IPs indefinitely, especially when they've stated they're editing from a public hot spot. AniMate 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we do. Not open editing's finest hour. pablo 01:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A one year block on the IP would probably be sufficient. Chester Markel (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs are static enough in that they could be indefinitely blocked. Other reasons may be that the owner requests as such. Finally, we have some open proxies which must be indefinitely blocked. Please see Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses and Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia for details. That is not to say that the indefinite IP block was appropriate, but I just want to point out that some IPs are indefinitely blocked and why. –MuZemike 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd point out that most of the tens of thousands of IPs in CAT:OP are no longer open proxies and should be unblocked. Indefinite blocks for IP addresses are only OK when they are kept under review. It is often too easy for the blocks to remain unreviewed. A fixed expiry, even if it's years ahead, prevents this kind of oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note about this IP

I have asked a steward to check IP 125.162.150.88, and he has verified that it is an open proxy with three ports open. It is also on several blacklists. Given the discussion in this section, I will not automatically reblock this IP but will await some other thoughts; however, on this project we normally block open proxies for a year. If there are no specific, policy-based objections to my doing so in the next 3 hours, I will block it at the end of that time per our usual process for blocking open proxies. Risker (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't "and agrees to not edit using open proxies" part of the unban agreement as well? What does that mean? Doc talk 04:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that at all. However, the IP was already blocked once today, and then unblocked. It would be poor form for an arbitrator to wheel-war; hence the advance notice with the detailed reason why I intend to reblock this IP address. This is an IP that would normally be blocked by any administrator who identified that it was an open proxy, whether or not a troubled editor was using it. Risker (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it's time to shut this door, and shut it tight. There is a clear restriction on the books that this individual can only edit using the "Jack Merridew" account. No exceptions. It's time to block this IP, and actually enforce the ArbCom's ruling. Courcelles 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no problem blocking an open proxy. If this doesn't wind up being the final answer, I note that Arbcom provided a sanction provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion: "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans". This would allow the matter to be raised at WP:Arbitration enforcement for a full discussion. If a block was issued, it would be a {{uw-aeblock}}, which would in theory give it more finality than a regular ANI block. If even this prospect is too divisive, the matter could be handed to Arbcom for them to consider a motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

the year-block clause was lifted by the 2009 motion further down (when I was commended for a clear return, yet still saddled with a few restrictions). The ac need to pass a motion; they've been stuck on this since January. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the section which says:

After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the above conditions.

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.

2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.

3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

...So are all publicly accessible networks open proxies now? If they are we'd better start blocking every single school, university, company, and private unsecured WiFi network in existence. We'll also have to block every cell phone network. Get busy. N419BH 05:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP is a public hotspot offered by a restaurant to patrons. A few people even know the restaurant. The IP is the Indonesian national phone company's, one of their 'Speedy' (DSL) connections. Such connections are the norm here and the Jack account edited for years on the prior IP that was serving this restaurant (which was 125.162.164.51). I also informed John Vandenberg that I was on this IP a month ago ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I interpret Risker's comment as stating that the open proxy determination was based on a port scan, not local accessibility through a wireless network. If this is the case, then the IP can be used by anyone on the internet, from any location. It's not our fault that the computer isn't properly secured. Chester Markel (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if this is true, and Jack's comment that such connections are "the norm" in Indonesia, then are you saying we'll have to block the entire country from editing? N419BH 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By "the norm", he seemed to mean wireless connections with local public access, not actual open proxies. Chester Markel (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that scanning IP addresses, and finding open or closed ports, can never confirm whether an IP is an open proxy. So many bad proxy blocks are based on finding open ports. Blacklists are even less trustworthy. If this is an open proxy, someone else should be able to prove it by using it. I think that's quite unlikely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The steward has given a wrong assessment of this IP. How about he creates an account, and it is block for a week for the various incivilities, and then he come back and resumes where he left off, given he loves us so much and couldnt quit ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know that the steward is wrong about the IP address being an open proxy? Silverseren^C 07:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

doubleplus-clue. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stewards are often wrong about open proxies :p There is no evidence that this is an open proxy. Please ask the steward to use it for editing, in order to be convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence to support the theory that it is an open proxy, and Occam told me it wasn't. Based on purely technical information, that IP is extremely unlikely to an open proxy, and the steward should be trouted. Additional information which can be obtained very easily corroborates the story given by Jack. Of course it could be an elaborate trick, .. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely isn't an open proxy. I've used a tool which tests the IP checking if it is a proxy or just an IP, the results showed that it is in fact just an IP. Bidgee (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No tool can be definite about that. You might get a good hit rate, but it can't be definite. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I read the the statement from an arb that this was a proxy and blocked it per policy so I'm slightly embarrassed to finish reading the section to see its proxy statement is in doubt so I unblocked it again.. Just to be clear as the unblocking admin I have no problems with an open proxy being blocked - if that is the consensus of what we are dealing with. I'm hardly covering myself in glory today so I'm going to bow out and take my kids shopping for the rest of the day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah Spartaz. Good decision to take some time with your family. Perhaps not moving ahead on something that is still under discussion might be a good idea in the future.

As for me, I noted that I was intending to make a policy-based open proxy block, but further evidence has persuaded me that there is not universal agreement in interpreting the data I'd been provided; John Vandenberg, who is also an experienced checkuser, has more familiarity with open proxies than do I and I will defer to him. (This is the kind of policy-based reason not to block that justified my not immediately blocking.) This discussion can resume on the topic of whether or not the community has found Jack's/the IP's behaviour disruptive to the point that it feels he should be removed from the project. Risker (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I've glossed over this IPs contribs and believe I've made every one of the edits so far this year. The ones in 2009 are not me (some vandal at a nice restaurant, or the IP was assigned elsewhere then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a bit of a train wreck

Anyone got an executive summary of the situation? My understanding of the above is:

1. user:Jack Merridew is participating from 125.162.150.88.
2. Under the terms of the original ArbCom unban, he was limited to editing only under user:Jack Merridew.
3. On 25 April, he withdrew from that agreement with this edit. The purpose would seem to be to be able to adopt a new pseudonym which didn't carry the baggage (i.e. years of being used an a boogieman) of the JM account.

Furthermore, there's another tangent regarding the nature of the IP:

1. 125.162.150.88 is apparently an unsecured public wifi hotspot.
2. It has been argued that this constitutes the use of an open proxy.
3. That would violate the unban agreement even if it were accepted that JM were free to start a new pseudonymous account.

I consider this one to be a red herring given the above facts.

Is there more to it than this?

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack cannot edit from "Jack Merridew" as the account is scrambled and compromised. There is also a question as to whether or not the restriction limits him to "one named account" or "one, named account" (the former would restrict Jack to "Jack Merridew" but possibly allow IP editing subject to compliance with the sockpuppetry policy, the latter would presumably not allow ip editing; the wording of the restriction uses the former). The "Open Proxy" question is a red herring in my opinion. Arbcom is apparently also discussing the present situation privately as noted from a couple postings by at least one of them on their talk pages. Think that's most of it...agree it's a bit of a train wreck. N419BH 08:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's totally lost on many that he was just asking for all his accounts to be unblocked. Is that "shame" of being Jack Merridew? His last post seems to indicate that we must let him edit anonymously in order to protect him from off-wiki attacks. Am I reading this right? Doc talk 08:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to add his actions over the past few days, which are also a part of the report. This includes edit warring and going over the 3RR limit (twice, I believe, or once and then going right back to exactly 3RR after his 24 hours block ended), not to mention the massive amounts of incivility and the recent personal attack made against SoV. Silverseren^C 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think there's disagreement over your initial point 2 above; some read the condition as "he may only edit using the account Jack Merridew" and others as "the only account he may edit under is Jack Merridew". Jack seems to have adopted the loophole in the second reading in editing as an IP. Skomorokh 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring, the user formerly known as Jack repeatedly removed this post, part of which constitutes a personal attack. I removed it twice myself on that basis. I am unclear why people would edit war to keep such a post on the page when the post is offensive and derogatory (IMHO). I would like to remind people that the same folks posting here over and over again does not constitute consensus. Skomorokh has posted eight times to this discussion, Silver Seren eleven times to last week's discussion and nine times to this one, and Doc9871 has posted twelve times to the discussion. It is hardly surprising that the IP feels like he is being railroaded. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no horse in this race. Explain yourself please. Skomorokh 13:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain, really. I was just counting the posts. I agree you and the IP do not seem to have any prior history. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for listing you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've counted a few editors who have over-contributed, but I think there's also a problem with an editor who magically appears to rip into Jack. User:Shemeska has only made 4 edits in the last 2 years (2 to his user page, and 2 supporting a ban for Jack Merridew). I've commented here, above. Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, would you people agree if someone were to help the guy post his edits (proxy editing)? After all, he considers the whole thing toxic, and so he should not be concerned about following toxic rules. Scuttled user (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Unrelated trolling struck. TNXMan 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Digging and digging... -- œ^™ 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the person whose comment I struck wasn't Jack Merridew - it was an unrelated troll. TNXMan 17:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• that one's not me, either. but I sure do bring all the trolls out of the woodwork. that's the whole pattern, here. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The counting isn't really necessary, I've posted more times than those individuals have to this discussion. The bottom line is this stems from ArbCom things and Jack's interpretation of ArbCom things, and it further stems from someone storming off in a fury after being "damned" (in his words) by ArbCom for "technical breaches" (in ArbCom's words) of old restrictions, restrictions which he had every reason to believe would be lifted, and restrictions which he had technically violated with no hammer coming down from ArbCom, again reinforcing his belief that the restrictions would be lifted. With that said, was he violating our rules on civility and edit warring while contributing from this IP? Yes. Should he have been blocked for it? Yes. Is he doing these things right now? I'd argue no. I've seen and personally experienced far worse with no blocks given, let alone a full community ban. Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and must serve to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. The question that must be asked is, should Jack be allowed to create an account and edit again, would he be a net positive to the project? I think for those who have seen his old talk page and looked through his contributions as "Jack Merridew", the answer to that question is obvious. N419BH 19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shemeska's vitriol is from my having battled grawp re the thousands of NN D&D articles in late 2007. teh wiki-wariors never forget anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough

As a completely uninvolved admin, having read the preceding discussion, I find something resembling a Tortured Consensus (TM) that the user in question ("David", apparently), be required to register a new account, and to edit exclusively with that account (this meets the spirit of the Arbcom requirements, given the scuttling of the Jack Merridew account they specified). The account name should be declared here (or at least to Arbcom, if the user strenuously objects to what would be helpful transparency). If the user rejects this, they have effectively banned themselves, and should be blocked from editing as an IP. Over to you, David. Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day mates, all right, here's the new account, from a secure pool of IP addresses, and not an unsecure hotspot at a restaurant. Now it's time for you haters to find a different hobby. Sinceasked0 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Hopefully this marks a "turning a new leaf" point where all concerned allow bygones to be bygones, and a new spirit of friendly collaboration in the pursuit of developing a great encyclopedia can flower. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all the restrictions will be archived. Improving articles in peace is a better job than having to fight over drama here and facing constant hassling from certain toxic personalities, mate. Sinceasked0 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC) impersonator, blocked. Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 (talk · contribs) is not mine. some impersonator. Rd232, this is not a matter for the community. still have to read what's gone on in the last 18 or so hours... Barong 01:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(and I've disclosed this that *is* me). Barong 02:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sinceasked0 is not me; Barong is. cf Barong (mythology). 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; I thought it seemed off but not enough to publicly doubt it. I extend the sentiments to you that, er, I thought I already had (above) :) Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I already read that. Should the impersonator account be blocked? I cannot do it, I am too involved. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Rd232. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I presume the impersonator is someone already permabanned... but if possibly not, such behaviour nearly merits it on its own. Rd232 ^talk 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

dunno, don't care, really. there's an old thread somewhere (email) about my role as 'flypaper'. I am irresistible to a lot of problematic editors. someone commented above about how many are involved. easily 80% of the detractors have a long history with me. Shemeska's a fine example. off-wiki there must be a lot of noise recruiting my old enemies for this. there are a few up there that I take seriously, and I'll have to work to mend those bridges. but for the most part, this whole thread is simply a typical insipid toxic trainwreck; it's what's wrong with this project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the same troll I blocked, above. If more impersonators pop up, please let me or another checkuser know - they're all probably the same troll. TNXMan 13:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

cockfight

• User:Jack Merridew/Editnotice

The owner of the place I'm staying has 4 cocks entered into a cockfight up in Taman and it starts in just a few minutes. I took pictures of them just before he set out, too. Anyway, the above editnotice contains a story about the Balinese love of their cocks, and I would like it undeleted. Terima kasih. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see why not, so I've done it. Rd232 ^talk 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks; User:Jack Merridew/Note switch 2, too (and it may pull in something...) I'll end up asking for it all to be undeleted. Barong 03:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Make a list when you have a minute. On your talk page --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I may just wait until I've done the RfC-style RfA ;) Barong 04:11, 8 May 2011 (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.

Possible legal threat

Hello. Actionems (talk · contribs) made this diff on the Action_Ambulance article. I am concerned that "Action will be taken" means legal action. Can someone please take a look? They also opened Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_Ambulance which I feel is a bad faith nomination based on the rationale that "the changes I make through "edit" keep getting undone. STOP UNDOING MY CHANGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" --v/r - TP 16:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears someone close to them issuing a legal threat. I recommend an indef here. — Moe ε 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the legal threat and the bad faith AfD, the editor has gone on a page-blanking spree on the article-at-issue. Agree on the indef bit. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with an indef block yet - I think things are escalating faster than they need to. This is someone who is distraught and confused about Wikipedia but I do not think is hostile. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I attempted working with this user on IRC. They came to IRC seeking help having the article deleted. I explained that it didn't appear to meet the criteria for article deletion but that they could attempt an AfD if they wished. The changes that keep getting undone appear to be their attempts at blanking the article. I don't think this is a bad faith nomination but is someone who's unfamiliar with Wikipedia and is a little panicked (she spoke of her boss "yelling at her" to get this article deleted), and I think the "action will be taken" bit is directed at vandals of the article, not at Wikipedia itself. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've a cooler head than mine. So long as the user understands that her actions aren't, you know, cool, then I think, as an uninvolved party, that all is well. The AfD was speedily closed, by the way. Probably not technically a "bad faith" nomination (depending on your interpretation of that phrase), but certainly not an AfD that deserved to go the full 7 days IMO. Either way, thanks for chatting with her, hopefully this just resolves itself without further action. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a legal threat to me, so I've blocked them - but please consider it temporary, and anyone is welcome to revert that decision if other approaches look more fruitful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (ec,ec,ec) (I made that decision several minutes ago, but struggled to post in the face of multiple edit conflicts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action_Ambulance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(edit conflict)User is now indef blocked - someone should probably procedurally close the AFD an if anyone is local to there or interested in the topic the article could use a good going over for improvement and wikification. Must be horrid having your boss shouting at you to get rid of that wikipedia article about us. - No worries as to the AFD its closed already. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the indef block. I think this is going to make a difficult situation worse before it gets better. Would someone please consider reverting to at most a temporary (24 hour) block, or lifting the block entirely? —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, we might have a bigger issue in terms of WP:COI on the article itself, looking through the history at User:ActionAmbulance. Someone might want to head over there and look through the history for this. If this is true, bosses yelling at people to delete the article, employees editing it, etc. we might want to semi-protect the article. — Moe ε 17:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Oneofthescotts also appears to be an account designed to edit the article as well. — Moe ε 17:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is a world of trouble, there's no doubt about that, but I don't think that indef blocking is going to improve anything. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure having single-purpose accounts unblocked to edit articles under the direction of their boss is any better :/ — Moe ε 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Non-ambiguous legal threat now on the user's talk page as a result of the block. --- Barek (talk) - 17:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Eek. So much for cooler heads. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's clearly not a hard-pressed employee - I think the block has to stay -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim Pierce - You had mentioned that the user said their boss was yelling at them to delete the article. Now the user is saying they own the company. Does there edit on their talk page contradict your discussion with them?--v/r - TP 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the user I spoke with on IRC ("Rachael") has been pushed aside and the company owner has taken the keyboard themselves. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, have a read of the article - rather than being defamatory, it seems to be positively glowing about the company - in fact, it's tagged as being too promotional. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This was the original version she had a problem with, which was riddled with random statements such as "All Action's bases have two armed guards with backgrounds in special forces and can withstand numerous close range air-to-surface missile strikes." all throughout the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Oneofthescotts gives a good summary of the problematic material. I'm not surprised that they got upset about the contents (especially if they were under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a Yellow Pages directory or suchlike). —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, those old versions were bad, and dissatisfaction with them is certainly understood. And maybe it's just those old versions that the threat which started this today was all about. If so, and if we keep a close eye on the article, I'd hope we can defuse this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that those edits were the specific cause of all the excitement today, compounded by a poor communication path between us and the company owners who were apparently so frantic about how to respond. That's why I was concerned about escalation. So, yes, hopefully we can still defuse it if they're willing to participate in the process. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposing the account hasn't been abandoned because of this, I'm going to leave a message there inviting the company owners or employees to email me so I can explain how Wikipedia works to him/her/it/them. With some luck, this can get sorted to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Red flag

I find it amusing that nobody blocked Oneofthescotts (who also socked as 65.96.132.234) for the totally hilarious yet egregious vandalism [23]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I never ever want to acknowledge or even implicitly encourage vandalism in the slightest way (WP:RBI!!!) but damn I can't help but laugh at that. -- Atama頭 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User Sitush is merging articles in undesired way

Resolved

User:Sitush have removed content and merged 20 of the articles (List of schools in 'xxx Indian state xxx') ) started by me in an undesired way. Kindly review his actions. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging is not disruptive behaviour. Have you discussed this with Sitush? Fences&Windows 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't merging but rather redirecting. Mahesh, who is the subject of a report above, today unilaterally split an article into numerous new, smaller articles & then inserted lists of redlinks in various places, created a page that had some sort of dependency on what he was doing (but was CSD'd before I saw it) and thus "broke" his scheme. His talk page today demonstrates numerous editors commenting on various recent actions and, I think, my redirects were the last straw for him. Within minutes of reporting me here he announced that he was taking a wikibreak,

It is all a little unfortunate, I am afraid. However, I stand by my actions, did try to advise him of a suitable course and have been trying to fix numerous issues which he has introduced in his recent spate of article creation. At least two editors who commented regarding how to deal with the articles which he is referring to above were admins (I am most definitely not!). - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, your efforts in cleaning up Mahesh Kumar Yadav's contributions is appreciated. I'm marking this section as resolved as the OP has chosen to take a break from editing and there is no admin action required here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues, editors uncivil, personal attacks, possible legal threats at Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana

A user with multiple sockpuppets "Contebragheonte" and may other identity, started an edit war on the voice and made uncivil and personal attack in the talk page and - most serious - stated a real name associating it to an user, that is a serious privacy violation under european and international law. Please some administrator can cancel the name. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.113.4.54 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of apparently real names listed in the arguments on that talk, but I can't easily work out which one you mean, or identify the legal threat. You may wish to email oversight-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org with a WP:DIFF of the edit that you think needs removing for privacy reasons. Regarding the sockpuppetry, you may wish to file a case at WP:SPI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

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.

---

Over the last week, this user has been engaging in a number of highly hostile and insulting posts towards me (ex: "pompous"). I've largely ignored reading what he's posted as soon as it became apparent he was launching yet another personal assault towards me. Tonight, it's quite coming to a head. To quote him, (referring to me) "That's what I'll say forever more, until you grow the fuck up." (see second part of the diff). I don't believe posting to WP:WQA is appropriate at this juncture, as MickMacNee has been blocked for civility issues on quite a number of occasions (see block log).

I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, but feel it's time for an administrator to step in. MickMacNee has been notified of this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a perfectly appropriate comment expressing the level of frustration his tendentious behaviour over NFCC induces. Go over to the Rfc and look at the exchange - he posted a huge section on how it doesn't matter what consensus concludes in it. I posted a large on point response. He then (wrongly) claimed that my criticism of his policy views represented an attack, no, to use his ridiculous term, an "assault", on him, and as such, he's not obliged to respond to any of it. He then continued to make the same points in the Rfc to other users, and then made a few more silly posts of the sort about how he's ignoring me etc etc. Who here wouldn't tell him to grow the fuck up after the 5th or 6th time you see this sort of pompous crap coming your way?

And the first diff is from a day or two ago when I laid out some of the finer points of the civility policy to him and how they compare to his frequent interactions with people on NFCC disputes, whereupon he claimed he abided by it and all other policies completely. A day or two later he was at Delta's talk page, where an IP had asked three times for a straight answer about some NFCC revert and got the usual back, and on the third time, Delta served him up 50 talk page archive links, and after that drew the predictable response, Hammersoft followed up with a suggestion that if the IP couldn't be bothered to read them, he shouldn't be commenting [24].

This is all simply a long pattern of incivil & tendentious behaviour all round from Hammersoft, much of it highly hypocritical and certainly all of it pretty self-unaware, so yes, it definitely needs to be looked into, if any responding admin is stuck for something to do after Hammersoft failed to offer a hint of what action he's seeking with this report. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the issue the two of you were disagreeing on (indeed I haven't even looked at it), I do think it's a bit rum that MickMacNee apparently came here straight from edit warring on a controversial template, then proceeded to criticize another user who was up for a block for incivility; indeed he started the section, but at the same time he was being pretty uncivil himself in another conversation. We should generally treat others as we wish to be treated, wouldn't you say? --John (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't apologize for a second for edit warring on that template. A user dived in to a stable situation and began reverting based on 'no consensus', aided by a meat puppet. I was merely restoring the stable version, and indeed it was me who did the correct next step by seeking its protection to force the initiator to the talk page before it became a gangfuck. You can look at the talk page, where you will see unsurprisingly that there's no support for the reverters desired state, as was the case the many times it was discussed before, and to which I referred to in every revert summary, and during those past disputes, I was the only user doing things like posting to NPOVN to solve the dispute, rather than edit war, as others were doing.
• My 'criticism' of that user is perfectly valid, I don't see what's wrong with it. If you can explain her actions, I'm all ears.
• And yes, I started that thread, guilty as charged. What is the charge exactly? I reported someone making gross attacks and requested a very appropriate indef, and they duly got indeffed. And are still blocked. Have I misunderstood ANI's purpose? Was I supposed to do as Hammersoft did and just go on a fishing trip to get some unspecified action against someone I've got bored of being incivil to myself? Because oddly, your last diff is the one he's cited above, and I've already explained that above.
• On that last point, yes, I treat everybody how I expect to be treated. If I post a lengthy post in a seperate section in an Rfc making some bold claims, I will expect rebuttals, and I will do those users the courtesy of replying to the substantive posts made, rather than being and continuing to be a wholly tendentious editor. I would certainly not piss them about for five or six posts playing silly buggers, claiming I have the right not to respond to anything if I deem it an "assualt", and claiming not to have seen diffs or other answers. MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is Mick *does* treat editors the way he wants (or expects) to be treated. This is NFCC, an area Mick and I have been at odds over before, and am on opposing sides with this RfC again so I hope I'm seen as impartial here. Some editors just have thick skin for these things. You can give him a big fuck you on one thing, then turn around and work together on another. It's issue by issue, and as long as you dont take it personally, it doesnt get personal. But if you do, Mick gets defensive and all of a sudden he really is going personal. Civil is as civil does, more or less. Mick isn't an angel in this, but just ignore him. Drop the stick. If its getting heated wander away for a while, come back later. Both of you. Constant bitching back and forth followed by ANI threads is not a way to reduce drama and tension. -- ۩ Mask 05:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sound advice. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To dispel the untruth that Mick was restoring the stable version have a look at the below table and as usual Mick has done nothing wrong it is everyone else who are wrong, notice all his replies they all follow the same pattern Editor A does this Editor B says that but me I am just an upholder of all that is good and I'm fighting the righteous fight of protecting wikipedia,

Date	User	Version A	Version B
20:40, 13 March 2011	Rannpháirtí anaithnid	●
20:54, 13 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
22:06, 24 March 2011	Snappy	●
23:30, 25 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
00:25, 26 March 2011	Rannpháirtí anaithnid	●
15:53, 26 March 2011	MickMacNee		●
12:06, 10 May 2011	Hans Adler	●
12:18, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●
12:46, 10 May 2011	Hans Adler	●
14:10, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●
14:27, 10 May 2011	Mo ainm	●
14:36, 10 May 2011	MickMacNee		●

Mo ainm~Talk 08:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sound advice ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From the offset, I am one of the editors currently involved in the disagreement over at the British Isles template.

However, long long before then, my experience of Mick is that he is an extremely hostile editor of a similar ilk to Sarah777. I have been on the receiving end of hostility and abuse from both editors — from Sarah for supposedly advancing a "pro-British" and "anti-Irish agenda" on Wikipedia ... and from Mick for supposedly advancing a "pro-Irish" and "anti-British" agenda!

Civility matters. We cannot create a quality encyclopedia collaboratively without civility. While everyone breaches it once in a while (and we all need to accept that aspect of human nature), habitually incivil editors drain moral, energy and collaboration from the project.

Civility issues with Mick are a very serious problem in my view. Transferring the responsibility to deal with these issues onto others, such as with AKMask advice, can only get us so far. Yes, it is a good idea to walk away from abusive and uncivil editors. However, if one editor is consistently abusive towards others, it is that editor's conduct that needs to be examined — not others. Civility is a prerequisite for contributing to this encyclopedia.

I would propose a RFC/U on Mick and see what the community's view of him is. --RA (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, I've never seen anything so incivil as to compare another editor to Sarah777. Unless you've got some diffs where I've been making some rather offensive allegories over the Irish tricolor, or have preceeded my involvement in each and every BI dispute venue with the stated intitial belief that all Irish are terrorists and Ireland is a nation with a history of terrorism, then for that insult on a high profile venue like the ANI board, I expect an immediate retraction. And frankly, it's not hard to be classified by the likes of Sarah as being "pro-British", she would classify anyone who didn't hold those sort of disgusting views as such (or if of irish descent, the exceedingly more offensive "West Brit"). And I certainly cannot recall ever labeling you as such (diffs for context?), but on the off chance I have, it was probably in response to the sort of behaviour that brings me onto the second point:

Instead of calling for a civility Rfc/U on me as a weapon to win the dispute at the Template:British Isles, I'd rather you filed a content Rfc to show some support for the following ideas: The British Isles template should change its state on different articles - this is how we do NPOV; That the British Isles is the sole terminology dispute where Wikipedia should be inventing new ways to present the NPOV, even though it's not done this way anywhere else; That Jimbo and quite a few other people with no horse in this dispute, and even a few Irish people, who have all debunked your position, know nothing about NPOV.

Because so far, you've shown no intention of doing anything in this dispute instead of rehashing and reheating it. I've yet to see you rebutt any of the major points on policy, precedent and technical issues. You've solicited input from the UK & Ireland boards, the NPOVN board, and all prior commenters (hopefully all, I haven't audited your selections). And unsurprisingly, you are getting the same feedback as the last time. If you remember, I raised this at NPOVN not once, but twice. The POV one liners & meat puppetry of the likes of Mo ainm carry no weight in this dispute, and neither does your repetitous rehashing the BI dispute or waffling about censorship.

Tbh, I'm contemplating raising an Rfc myself which would transplant your arguments to the general case, and show what implications that has for the likes of Template:Middle East, which I can guarantee would go down like a lead balloon as a proposed way of doing NPOV. This seems to me the only way you might finally drop the stick. Or maybe not. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been down the RfC route before with with MickMacNee. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee, with one desired outcome listed as "MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users." It's worth reading. There are many other threads from this noticeboard regarding his behavior;

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#User:MickMacNee_and_persistent_incivility (September 2008)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#User:MickMacNee (March 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#Disruptive_behaviour_and_personal_attacks_by_MickMacNee (November 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#User:MickMacNee (January 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October_2010#MickMacNee (October 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#User:MickMacNee (November 2010)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive652#Talk_page_comments_by_MickMacNee (November 2010)

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your name comes up pretty often on this noticeboard too. [25]. Are we to believe all of these are instance of editors praising your self-asserted view that you "abide by all policies and guidelines"? I'm pretty sure there's a guideline about not using the Incidents board to just stir up general drama. Or it may just be classed as common sense/decency, and thus goes under your tendentious radar. If you've got a specific request of an admin for the 'incident' you think you've raised by starting this section, then just state it. Unlike you at the Rfc, I shall be here as long as it takes, responding to whatever you come up with, as common decency requires. You won't hear a peep out of me about how you are "assaulting" me with this muck raking, or that you should go find another "platform" to express your clear and obvious "hatred" of me (I'm quoting words Hammersoft uses repeatedly in these situations). I shall not be invoking "Hammersoft's Law" which asserts my right to act like a child and stick my fingers in my ears and say 'naa naa naa I can't hear you' whenever anyone starts criticising my actions in policy or behaviour. If you're not happy with no admin agreeing with your views of the world, and if you or anyone else still want to raise an Rfc/U on me, then just do it. If you're just here to muck rake, then please retract your claim that you "abide by all policies and guidelines", because it's clearly nonsense. If I were to follow one particular example of your past tendentious behaviour on this board, I should have already sub-sectioned your collection of ANI threads already under some inflammatory heading like 'Hammersofts continued muckraking'. As I said above, your capacity for hypocrisy and complete self-unawareness is legendary, and it's probably raised often in the instances where your name comes up on this noticeboard. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (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.

Persistent OR and lack of discussion/edit warring by Platinumshore

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

Platinumshore first appeared in January of 2011 to insert a paragraph into Peak oil. The many attempts to acquire adequate references for the new material (including difs) are documented in to (mostly ignored) complaints to 3RRN: [26] [27] On May 4, after the second 3RR request was not acted upon, Platinumshore again removed tags, and made minor cosmetic changes to the material (changing one discussion thread source for another), again with no discussion.

Assistance was also requested on wp:ea and ORn, though no comment was given. Given that this user refuses to discuss any changes, insists on removing tags such as CN and SYN giving no explanation, and only uses poor sources (such as discussion boards and youtube) for new material in a GA article, and given that this has been the pattern for 5 months, I request that some administrative action be taken.

This user only logs on every week or two to make the same changes, therefore a 3-day block will have no effect on their behavior. 173.10.73.233 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to notify him 173. I've just done that now. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No sign of him editing at the moment. As you say - there are often quite long gaps between his edits. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Platinumshore wrote an initial article on the effects of rising prices which remained unedited and was accepted for over 2 months, then for unknown reasons, possibly political as the tensions in the Middle East increased, was repetitively edited and invalid references were added by people unknown using ip addresses logins only to try to avoid the 3 login warring rule. If people wish to accuse Platinumshore of warring (when in fact he or she is merely keeping article factual correct) despite corruption from ip address only logins to the topic of POSSIBLE effects of rising prices than perhaps they should login first using their real account details so a valid debate can be held by all concerned parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumshore (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While use of alternate accounts to avoid detection is contrary to policy, unless it can be shown that the ip editors are indeed accounts attempting to hide their identity it should be assumed that these changes are made in good faith. Also, since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone - including ip accounts - you have no grounds to request that ip's should identify themselves. Lastly, you do not WP:OWN the article you started and any edit should be judged on the basis of its adherence to the policies and practices, including reverts by you. You are apparently quite mistaken on how things are supposed to work around here.
Opening the discussion up, I would also comment that the editor referring to themselves in the third person rings a bell with me - and unfortunately in regard possibly to a disruptive editor. Can anyone help here, to put to rest that possible angle? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is not correct either. Platinumshore themselves added inappropriate references. Neither have they made any attempt to discuss this despite requests. If what you say is correct, Platinumshore, then it should be possible to find a decent reference. There is no justification for not discussing this with other editors - certainly not because they are IPs. Unsourced information that is controversial or not obvious should and will be removed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.

Martinoei (talk · contribs) claimed on my talk page that his blog readers insisted he do something about me - meaning he was canvassed to be a meatpuppet. He then posted on his blog two entries: 1 2 - asking readers to engage in revert warring. His blog is repeated by other blogs, so this has some traction. Along came a series of IP addresses and stale (had not edited in years) user accounts that began revert warring.

Recommended action for an admin:

• Educate Martinoei to appropriate on-wiki behaviors.
• Protect (try semi-pp first) for a few weeks the following articles: Shenzhen Bay Control Point, Lotus Bridge, Lok Ma Chau Station, Lo Wu Control Point, Lok Ma Chau Control Point, Man Kam To Control Point, Sha Tau Kok Control Point. These articles seem to be the focus of the current disruption.

Sign: SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe your complain only is the personal attack on me. Please read his article in User:SchumckyTheCat/Mainland_China before examine the complain, his editing work only impose his political point of view in Wikipedia English. I don't want to change the Schumcky political faith, but he is changing the wording of Wikipedia to fit his political standpoint, this is vandalism. Before you complain me as meatpuppet, please think about your edits in the article.

Administrator, please drop the complain from this guy.

On the other hand, his Chinese nickname 猶太陰莖貓 is insulting Jewish and indecent in Chinese. The exact translation of his Chinese nickname is Jewish penis cat, why Wikipedia English can allow this kind of user to be editor? His nickname is a racism nickname. Please think it carefully. Martinoei (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an english translation of those blog posts and is Martinoei willing to confirm or deny those are their posts? Google translate is making a hash of the text. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, yeah, is there a valid reason for having a racial slur in Chinese on SchmuckyTheCat's userpage? Fences&Windows 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And "rice boy" is another blatant racial slur. Schmucky, please edit to remove racial slurs from your userpage. Fences&Windows 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He actually can't, the page has been protected since 2008. Prodego ^talk 23:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual link that is red linked above is User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mainland China, which is kind of troublesome.. — Moe ε 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, good point. I've removed them. Cue hanging and flogging from the peanut gallery for being the "civility police"? Fences&Windows 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, did somebody call the morals police? Rice boy is a term in the street car scene relating to cars that are done up aesthetically but not better at performance. This morality nonsense is clearly unnecessary IMO. Plus, how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese (from what I can put together)? I own a riced-up car too, and that makes me a "rice boy" as well. That's what people are called when they own a riced-up car. I don't get the controversy. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"how would "rice anything" be "racist" if the user himself is Chinese" While I agree "rice boy" wasn't necessarily the worst name I've ever heard, let's not open the "it's not racist if they themselves use it" can of beans. — Moe ε 23:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was confused by this too- where I live, 'ricer' is pointed at a person who drives Japanese cars of unimpressive quality but enhanced spiffiness. It's a car-related insult, unrelated to the race of the driver. I guess it might be racist against the people who manufactured the cars. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Moe_Epsilon: And still, I've no idea how "rice XYZ" is considered racist in the first place. Rice is a grain seed that grows from a plant in the ground, and is cultivated in Asia, where it is eaten as a staple food. Is there any reason why anyone should find "rice boy" demeaning? If we call newspaper delivery people "paper boys" and young monks that pray in temples "altar boys", why can't we call people "rice boys" in the same manner, regardless of the context of food or automobiles? If this is because of affirmative action or political correctness, then why not make Wikipedia more doubleplusgood by removing all crimethink? Removing things based on assumptions alone seems pretty Orwellian to me. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have an idea, you'd have to ask the people who thought it was a racist term to begin with, I never said it was. I know what rice is, I'm also familiar with the slang "rice boy" in terms of automobiles. :p — Moe ε 02:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we come back to the original topic of this? I can't view the blog posts listed above, but if indeed Martinoei is using his blog to canvass off-wiki, that's got to stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism from SchmuckyTheCat on Hong Kong related article

Please check the editing history from SchmuckyTheCat

Extended content

22:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Martinoei ‎ (top) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Offwiki canvassing specifically targeting my contribs.: new section) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tai Po Kau Station ‎ (tighter stub cat) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (already in child categories.) (top) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by Martinoei (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by Alexlaw19) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 139.80.123.36 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169546 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 06:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428169424 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in POV edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 04:38, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong Section ‎ (grammar.) (top) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Samsung SCH-U450 ‎ (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→References) (top) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Chinese Canadian ‎ (→See also) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone ‎ (→Vandals?) (top) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2 ‎ (→Shinese) (top) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Chinese Canadian ‎ (→Language: why is this in blockquotes?) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (adding unsourced tag. the title says it is from the 2001 census, but we have no concurrence.) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (→List: the ethnic group column was unsourced and subject to an edit war. as contested unsourced material it should be removed.) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 8 ‎ (→Nudity in The Simpsons) 01:00, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940055 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427940363 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by Hillgentleman (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 00:56, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944529 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) (top) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 428090370 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of idle user in order to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user. (TW)) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427944795 by SchmuckyTheCat; curious resurrection of long idle user account to engage in edit war as proxy for banned user.. (TW)) (top) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941594 by Mato; curious resurrection of dead user account to engage in edit war for banned user. (TW)) (top) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 21:27, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (→Article blanking and "sources") 20:57, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted to revision 334874403 by WPArkansas Bot; this is in China, and belongs in the China Wikiproject.. (TW)) 20:56, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 202.140.105.136 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 10:06, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (fix template.) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 10:00, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 09:59, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Martinoei (talk); Really curious that a user idle for three years will siddenly participate in an edit war. (TW)) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→May 2011) 18:56, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Requested moved) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.142.19 ‎ 18:49, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:218.250.143.151 ‎ (top) 17:46, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted to revision 427941531 by Mato; revert past banned user. (TW)) (top) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427928354 by Qwyrxian; make it easier, just revert past the banned user. (TW)) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Mato) 17:41, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by Freakmighty) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by 218.250.142.19 (talk); Removing edits by banned user. (TW)) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people (Macanese-born Portuguese people) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 219.77.91.12) (top) 17:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→WP:3RR) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Futian Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hail and ride ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Request stop ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by 184.144.163.181) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.142.19 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 17:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block) 16:36, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→Need a sock block: 218.250.143.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), incarnation of User:Instantnood) 16:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations ‎ (top) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Macanese people ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 16:19, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (→Recent move) 16:14, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→HK / Macao renaming) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lotus Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Macanese people ‎ (Reverted to revision 418787963 by 82.110.91.242; citation is reference number 1. (TW)) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Vmenkov ‎ (Macau) (top) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Port ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (the category was moved. this is all internal to China) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ 15:15, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 15:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Macau border crossings ‎←Created page with ' 15:11, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (db-catempty) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Qwyrxian) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 15:09, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hengqin New Area ‎ (city, not a cross in itself.) (top) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:08, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:SchmuckyTheCat ‎ (→The massive cross wiki war going on right now) 15:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Zhuhai ‎ (→External links: rm cat) (top) 15:05, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Posto Fronteiriço das Portas do Cerco ‎ (this is all in China.) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Portas do Cerco ‎ 15:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Portas do Cerco ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lotus Bridge ‎ (this is all in China.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with move.) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:Macau border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:Macau border crossings to Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings: consistent with HK template) (top) 14:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (consistent with presenting this as intra-country internal border) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China–Macau border crossings to Template talk:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong - Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China–Macau border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China–Macau border crossings to Template:Macau border crossings: There are not two countries here, it is internal to China) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Gongbei Port of Entry ‎ (this is all in China.) st version by Ricky@36) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Sma 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by After Midnight) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Cydebot) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Tidal island ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:30, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m British Airways destinations ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 120.63.155.29) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Orbital roads in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Rail transport in Hong Kong ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Yobot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Category:Hong Kong rapid transit stubs ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:KCR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 58.153.96.209) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:HongKong-rapidtransit-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Colonies Chris) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/April/27 ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:MTR-stub ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Dawynn) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:XRL ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Hammersoft) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Garden Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Wongm) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m MacDonnell Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Kennedy Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Heimstern) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m May Road (Peak Tram) ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of largest cable-stayed bridges ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by 12.108.78.146) (top) 13:29, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of ring roads ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Break-of-gauge ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by Max Laguna) 13:27, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m List of flags by color ‎ (Reverted edits by 218.250.143.151 (talk) to last version by SchmuckyTheCat) (top) 05:18, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients ‎ (rm ii as without sources, as per talk page notice.) 05:13, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD C1). (TW)) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (top) 05:07, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:03, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Rock-paper-scissors ‎ (→External links: rm annoying ws.) 05:02, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lo Wu Control Point ‎ (Guangdong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Huanggang Port Control Point ‎ (Guandong and HK are peers within China.) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (←Created page with 'This category contains pages on border crossings between Guangdong and Hong Kong. [[Category:Border crossi...') 04:59, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Futian Port Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 04:58, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:Shenzhen ‎ (not a subcat of that.) (top) 04:57, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ 04:55, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Man Kam To Control Point ‎ (my bad, fix it.) 04:54, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (my bad.) 04:51, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (retitle, to go with rename) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template talk:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) 04:50, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings ‎ (moved Template:China – Hong Kong border crossings to Template:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings: Hong Kong is part of China, the border is between 1st order political divisions.) (top) 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ 04:48, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (GuanGdong,) 04:45, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guangdong) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) N Guandong province ‎ (←Redirected page to Guandong) 03:44, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Lok Ma Chau Station ‎ (this is all in China. The border is between first order divisions that require immigration controls.) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) Sha Tau Kok Control Point ‎ (Reverted to revision 427677116 by SchmuckyTheCat; this is all in Chian. (TW)) 03:39, 7 May 2011 (diff | hist) m Escape Clause ‎ (Reverted edits by 64.132.104.226 (talk) to last version by Thecheesykid) (top) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor ‎ (It is not like China is a different "side", this is all internal to China.) 05:33, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Shenzhen Bay Control Point ‎ (it is all in China) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (diff | hist) Hong Kong China Ferry Terminal ‎ (this is all in China.)

He wastes most of his time to change all Hong Kong related articles as "within China" article, because he thinks Hong kong is just an ordinary city of China. In Chinese constitution, Hong Kong and Macau both are not treated as the part of China due to international treaties and special article of Chinese constitution. Hong Kong resident cannot enter mainland without the visa (Home Entrance permit is required for Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong, Visa is required for non Chinese Citizen in Hong Kong like me. His contribution history clearly shows his systematic vandalisms on Hong Kong and Macau related articles. I really beg the administrator to prompt action against this kind vandalism. I do not have enough evidence to prove his political intention, but so many Hong Kong users will think he is insulting them.

Please check his editing history carefully.

I have idled in Wikipedia English does not means I am meatpuppet. The real meatpuppet will not file this kind of complain and defend the Wikipedia. I vote in metawiki due to my activities in Chinese and Cantonese Wikipedia. Martinoei (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to list his entire editing history, a link to here will suffice. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already been quite clearly addressed on Martinoei's talk page that this is not vandalism. There's nothing here for administrators to do unless there are instances of blockable edit warring, which might lead to blocks on both sides (and keep in mind that many of Schmucky's reverts on this type of article have been of a banned user and would not count as edit warring). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", but I'm sure you don't know what it means - this is not "vandalism". Additionally, your claim that "Hong Kong is not China" is your own POV, and it would take some persuasive arguing to prove that it is indeed factual. The Flag of the People's Republic of China flies full-mast above the local legislature of Hong Kong, so how is Hong Kong not China? Your claim about international treaties and the Chinese constitution makes no sense, as the Basic Law of Hong Kong clearly states Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and although autonomy is guaranteed via the one country, two systems policy, there are no foreign countries or international organizations at all that recognise Hong Kong as a separate sovereign state. Claiming that HKers "will think he is insulting them" is also a gross generalization; can you speak on behalf of all 8 million of them? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong is really not the same country as China, even though they are now ruled by the same regime. They have different currency, different law, different language (spoken and written), different culture, independent border control, and even a different passport! That's correct to say Hong Kong is part of China politically. Just same as saying British India and the United Kingdom are the same country, or Porto Rico and United States are the same country. From a visitor's point of view, they are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriantam (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. Regardless, though, this noticeboard is not part of our content decision-making process; it's about problems with user behaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Martin on EN:WP isn't particularly helpful; the call to arms is offsite. Nor am I asking for him to be blocked for it unless he continues the behavior here. As long as the blog posts exists, it will attract HK nationalist editors. It's all the proxy/puppet reverting going on. Some page semi-pp might be useful, but mostly some good faith backup that I, as a long time contributor, know what I am doing defending NPOV in a highly charged atmosphere against raging proxy/puppet editors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the blogs

I'm using Google Chrome, which has a built in translation service. Obviously, the service is not very good at translating Chinese, but it's enough to get the gist of it. Reading through both entries, I can say that the second one is far more concerning than the first.

A rough translation of the first paragraph gets, "I would not interfere with another's political beliefs, but if this person is planning on applying his northern beliefs across the English Wikipedia, then there is only one choice, to give him a head blow." That's probably some sort of colloquialism. Anyways, it goes on to say in the second paragraph, "It has been impossible to get any meaningful dialogue with this user and how he is dwarfing Hong Kong in his own way. So, I suggest to all of you, brothers, to cancel all of his political views on all the articles he edits. I believe he will not surrender and some of your accounts will be banned, so be prepared. But if he has intended to offend the people of Hong Kong, he will know the price for doing so."

....so, yeah. I think we have a problem here and it's not with Schmucky, but with Martinoei. Silverseren^C 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ickyuck. Hong Kong's such a sensible place, too; I really wouldn't have thought it have such nationalistic (err, special administrative regionalistic?) battleground mentality coming from it. Before suggesting action, could a Chinese-reading user possibly verify this translation? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something like "to revert all edits in which he applied his political view", but otherwise the translation is fairly accurate. T. Canens (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, blatantly unacceptable canvassing, I'd say. What should be done? Is this just something where he needs to warned to stop, or is something stronger required? (I'm actually asking; I really don't have all that much experience with canvassing issues.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left Martinoei a warning here. Comment is welcome on the wording or substance of it. It seems to me that really, Martin remains in violation of policy (at least its spirit) as long as these blog posts remain and could be blocked if he does not delete them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a warning of some sort is warranted, however as for the rest, I would tread lightly, because we really can't force Martinoei to take down his blog posts nor can we block him here for ranting on his own blog. If I had written the warning, I would not have included the "and even implying threats such as "giv[ing] him a head blow"" part though, because the machine translation of his blog was poor at best. A common English phrase would be something along the lines of "smack some sense into x" or similar. While not polite, such an idiom is not a threat. Chinese reunification is a highly politicized issue and this must be treated with care. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this has nothing to do with Chinese reunification, which deals with the Mainland-Taiwan issue. Hong Kong and Macau have been part of the PRC since 1997 and 1999 respectively, and aren't related to that article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I should have linked to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. My original point is still true though, which this is a hot button subject which a lot of people have very strong feelings about. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK then, I think we can more or less call this good. The issues in this thread were (1) canvassing by Martin. Warned, and there seems to be little support for any further action. (2) "Vandalism" by SchumckytheCat. It's been clearly established that there was no vandalism by the Wikipedia definition. (3) Tothwolf asserts that this is part of a greater behavioural problem by SchmuckytheCat. I neither confirm nor deny this, but as it comes to long-term behaviour problems, surely the proper place is WP:RFC? I mean, Tothwolf himself has mentioned the possibility of arbitration coming soon here; the usual prerequisite for that is not ANI discussion but an RFC. So, is there anything else to discuss here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of SchmuckyTheCat provoking others remains. As for my mention of ArbCom, that was in the context of the "mainland China" vs "The People's Republic of China" dispute and revert warring which appears to have been going on for years (Cf. WP:DIGWUREN, WP:ARBAA2, Wikipedia:General sanctions) and not SchmuckyTheCat's behaviour towards other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, why can't we take this to an RFC, then? Or at least a new thread here at ANI that actually focuses on that and not on this particular dispute about Hong Kong and Mainland China. One issue per thread is just better practice; it makes things easier to follow, and it's more likely to get the attention needed if it's not piggybacked on some other topic which is mostly resolved. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with someone splitting this AN/I thread if you want to do that, as long as a link back to the rest of this is provided and visible. The RFC/U process is largely voluntary and not productive for conduct issues. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is not an "innocent victim"

SchmuckyTheCat is not exactly an innocent party and I am not at all surprised that he has intentionally attempted to provoke a dispute with other editors such as User:Martinoei. While I've not followed his recent China and Hong Kong mess very closely, his contribution history appears to show a pattern of him edit warring in this topic area that has been going on for quite awhile.

In addition to his "dispute" with Martinoei, SchmuckyTheCat has also begun engaging in trolling/griefing behaviour in an apparent attempt to bring a past off-wiki dispute on-wiki. It started up after I removed the link to the .ch site from the Encyclopedia Dramatica article per the lengthy discussions on the talk page (Summary: the .ch site is a copyvio as the pages on the .ch site do not contain the full edit history). After I removed this link, SchmuckyTheCat began combing through my contribution history and made this edit to a previously very heated discussion I had been involved in and has continued his attempts to provoke fighting there. SchmuckyTheCat is a well known ED "participant" and I've previously banned him from other off-wiki sites and blocked him from contacting me.

After SchmuckyTheCat began this latest attempt here on Wikipedia, I sent him a short email and told him to leave me alone, he in turn apparently posted an email on his talk page (I never saw it) which an administrator removed. Immediately after he posted an email on his talk page, he then set his talk page archive rate to 1 year in an attempt to keep his attack against me visible on his talk page for a long period of time. In addition to continuing to follow my edits to the comparison article discussion, he then followed me to a WP:VPP discussion in which I had been participating.

With the comparison article, SchmuckyTheCat specifically targeted material I added, restored, or discussed on the talk page. His blanking of material from the comparison article has been repeatedly reverted by a number of editors (while being actively discussed on the talk page), [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] yet he has continued to engage in this type of behaviour. In this edit SchmuckyTheCat states he doesn't care if he is reverted, which goes to further show his behaviour is a willful violation of both WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. His initial removal of material could have been considered per WP:BRD, however this is in addition to this type of thing which is also disruptive given this information which he already knew was right there on the talk page.

While the discussion on the comparison article talk page has involved the occasional use of a Nerf bat employed as a makeshift LART, despite SchmuckyTheCat's attempts otherwise, the torches and pitchforks still haven't come into play, and this seems to have been a major disappointment for him.

SchmuckyTheCat is not some "innocent victim" with everyone on Wikipedia "out to get him". Wikipedia is not the place for his ED trolling/"lulz", but apparently the community is going to have to make this clear to him. I would rather prefer to avoid a repeat of the type of events which took place with User:Theserialcomma's trolling/harassment [37] [38] [39] [40] however I'm already beginning to see some behavioural parallels.

For the tl;dr folks, here is a wikitable with a timeline of events so far:

Timeline of events

Date (UTC) User Quote/diff 25 April 2011 03:28 Tothwolf "Reverted edits by 107.10.117.30 (talk) to last version by 198.82.113.231" 26 April 2011 00:30 SchmuckyTheCat Discussion 26 April 2011 03:46 SchmuckyTheCat "confirmed by who?" 27 April 2011 14:19 SchmuckyTheCat "rm this client not supported by at least one significant third party source, per RFC on talk page." 28 April 2011 22:08 SchmuckyTheCat "rm of Orion, which was purely hidden text anyway." 28 April 2011 22:19 SchmuckyTheCat Reversion of unilateral action 29 April 2011 08:36 Tothwolf WP:VPP Userfied versions of deleted articles: Reply 30 April 2011 04:50 SchmuckyTheCat "Removed LeetIRC as entirely unsourced, as mentioned by IRWolfie on the talk page." 30 April 2011 05:39 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied versions of deleted articles - Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 30 April 2011 06:37 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 30 April 2011 07:44 SchmuckyTheCat WP:VPP Userfied articles should be moved to the Incubator 7 May 2011 05:18 SchmuckyTheCat "rm ii as without sources, as per talk page notice." 7 May 2011 14:00 SchmuckyTheCat "this is unsourced, despite contrary proclamations by a single user, contested unsourced material can be removed by anyone." 8 May 2011 21:27 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources" 8 May 2011 21:28 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources" 9 May 2011 00:54 SchmuckyTheCat Article blanking and "sources"

--Tothwolf (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that Schmucky's edits should be examined to determine whether there is any basis in the accusation of inserting political views into articles, I think that we should first deal with the easier task of Martinoei's obvious off-wiki canvassing and threatening. Once that's out of the way, we can get back to Schmucky. Silverseren^C 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

With regards to Martinoei, is there really anything we can do? We don't really have any jurisdiction over Martinoei's personal blog, and we really can't tell him not to rant about something on his blog. As I understand it, the China / Hong Kong thing is highly volatile in terms of politics, and from the looks of it, SchmuckyTheCat appears to be taking advantage of that to try to create drama here on Wikipedia. That said, perhaps Martinoei should take these discussions as reason enough to be more careful what he writes publicly, especially when some things may not translate well (such as his comment about swatting SchmuckyTheCat upside the head)?

A far better question might be, how was SchmuckyTheCat even aware of Martinoei's blog posts in order to link to them here if he wasn't attempting to start a fight with Martinoei in the first place? It sure seems like SchmuckyTheCat wanted to have a massive edit/revert war with Martinoei or whomever else from the Wikipedia community he hoped might get caught up in the resulting drama.

A common principle I've seen in many ArbCom cases has included this or similar wording: "Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards." With this and the other stuff in mind, I think we need to focus just as much or possibly more attention on SchmuckyTheCat's behaviours since that seems to be what led to Martinoei ranting on his personal blog in the first place. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

...or perhaps to put this another way, Martinoei and his blog readers got trolled by SchmuckyTheCat right here on Wikipedia with SchmuckyTheCat likely now sitting back and laughing at everyone involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Is there really anything we can do?" I'm pretty certain that off-wiki canvassing and borderline threats are grounds for a block. Whatever you want to say about how Schmucky goaded Martinoei, Schmucky wasn't the one that wrote those blogs posts in order to canvass his readers or worded things in the threatening way that he did. He's still responsible for what he does and says in relation to Wikipedia. Again, I am not saying that Schmucky should not be getting in trouble as well, but his case is going to take a more in-depth look to see the extent of his partisanship, while we should just deal with Martinoei's open and shut case so we can focus our full attention on Schmucky. Silverseren^C 23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"how was SchmuckyTheCat even aware of Martinoei's blog posts...?" - well I can't really explain for SchmuckyTheCat, but I'm sure a smart user would do a quick google trawl when xhe notices something out of the ordinary, such as a sudden jump in SPAs. That was how I found out that I had become famous on 2channel a few years ago, after I had noticed a whole heap of strange IP edits in contentious China-Japan related articles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm hatting this section below because it has largely turned into a pissing match between Heimstern and myself and isn't helpful to the larger issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

For the record, from what I've seen, the majority of SchmuckytheCat's reverts on Hong Kong material has been of the banned user Instantnood, so it would not be sanctionable edit warring. I find this section generally unhelpful: a user with a previous dispute against SchmuckytheCat shows up admitting to not knowing anything about the current dispute and simply imports the previous dispute. I would move to close this section as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Heimstern, wow, well...if you really want to get snarky then I guess I'll tell you how I feel about your remarks too...after all, this is AN/I, right? For the record, I find it rather unhelpful that you didn't check that the material I noted above (which includes timestamps) is both on-going and current. I also don't much like that you've attempted to classify me as "a user with a previous dispute against SchmuckytheCat shows up admitting to not knowing anything about the current dispute and simply imports the previous dispute" when the material above shows that it is both on-going and current (and yes, I have read over the other material too). Heimstern, moreover, it really doesn't matter to me that you may or may not agree with some of the things SchmuckyTheCat reverted because I have absolutely no desire to get involved in a debate over which of SchmuckyTheCat reverts in the "China" vs "Hong Kong" mess are correct or not. I'm simply not interested at all in taking sides in the whole "China" vs "Hong Kong" mess itself. The only thing I really care about here is the ongoing disruption which seems to gather 'round SchmuckyTheCat, and it hasn't been solely related to Martinoei. I'll also state that when I see ongoing edit warring in a larger topic area which has an identical pattern to edit warring from 4 years ago, [41] [42] the larger problem probably isn't that far from heading to ArbCom. (Cf. WP:DIGWUREN, WP:ARBAA2, or any of the ethnic conflicts also noted at Wikipedia:General sanctions) The bottom line is, SchmuckyTheCat has engaged in both trolling behaviour and edit warring, including edit warring with others outside of the "Hong Kong material" as noted above. Martinoei may have done some misguided things and perhaps he shouldn't have allowed himself to be trolled in the first place (and then in turn ranted about it on his blog), but SchmuckyTheCat certainly isn't innocent, either. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC) There was no snark in my comment, Tothwolf. But thanks for assuming bad faith. (There, now there's snark.) Regardless of whether your dispute with Schmucky is ongoing, it is unrelated to the topic at hand, which is the behavioural problem at Hong Kong-related articles, and importing some unrelated dispute is vindictive and disruptive. If you see a greater, overarching problem with Schmucky's behaviour, WP:RFC is that way. This is not the place for you to air unrelated grievances, though. P.S.: "it really doesn't matter to me that you may or may not agree with some of the things SchmuckyTheCat reverted". Entschuldigung? I've never stated agreement with any of his reverts; only that many of them were reverts of banned users. P.P.S.: This thread is still unhelpful and irrelevant to the topic, and I call on any uninvolved editor to close it pronto. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, Schmucky's overall behaviour is related, and his edits where he has edit warred with a number of other editors (he didn't edit war with me) in the material I noted above are intermixed between his edits to the "Hong Kong" material. Importing a dispute would involve bringing a completely unrelated off-wiki matter on-wiki, which is not the case since this is all on-wiki stuff. Ultimately, Schmucky did not like the fact the ".ch" link was removed from Encyclopedia Dramatica and he chose to engage in harassment behaviour because of it. Regarding your P.P.S., if "closed" this will simply be reopened, be it here or elsewhere, so long as the original issue of Schmucky's disruptive behaviour remains. Schmucky has a long history of trolling others, and it needs to be resolved. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's now hidden up there, I'm going to reiterate my request for the closure of this sub-thread as tangential to the actual topic of the thread. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 (again!)

Yep, he's back and evading both his community ban and rangeblock, having moved from IPs 79.213 to 79.215 - but it's definitely him, quacking away. For background please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680#Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#Zombie433 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Zombie433 evading ban...admin intervention greatly appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No admin bothered that we have an editor evading both his community ban and rangeblock then? Huh. GiantSnowman 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators both willing and capable of making range blocks are few and far between. See WP:RANGE for the reason why. Getting swift action for such a request just isn't going to happen unless you're very lucky. -- Atama頭 18:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, I'm not requesting a new rangeblock, just something like a CU investigation into any new IP this guy is using. GiantSnowman 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You might have better luck at WP:SPI. Not that this isn't a good place to ask for such a thing, but since this hasn't received attention here, you might try there. It's not exactly forum shopping if you just haven't been able to get a response, but it would be good to link back to this page if you do so just to acknowledge that you've made multiple requests. -- Atama頭 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice, I'll see if anything happens here, and if not, I'll give SPI a shot. I only tried here in the first place because Zombie433 is well known around these parts... GiantSnowman 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Singer-Songwriters

The article List of singer-songwriters has been damaged, and I can't tell how it happened. For whatever reason, User 120.127.93.243 blanked the TOC on 11 April 2011. That should not have affected what occurred, but at this point, the United States of America section for traditional singer-songwriters was deleted. (I didn't check whether other countries were affected as well). The loss of the section does not show up when you review the revision, though the size of the article drops by about 5,000 bytes. I know I can Undo the edit, but since this happened a month ago, a dozen or so subsequent edits would be lost. The alternative, for me at least, would be to cut and paste the lost data from a previous version. However, the unusual results of the edit in question should probably be reviewed at the admin level. As indicated above, I will inform the editor in question about this request. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what's so odd about this. They removed a bunch of stuff including that section, and it is visible when looking at the diff. – anna 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: it might be hard to see because it's so long, but if you look at it closely you'll see that they cherry-picked entries, removing figures like Courtney Love. That would doubtless account for the reduced size. – anna 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably the cause of the size reduction. If any of those entries need to be added back in, add them back in.

I don't see anything that an admin needs to do here. The IP did a large restructuring of the page, making it more easily readable (and shorter, length-wise) by using multiple columns, and added __NOTOC__ to remove the table of contents. These are editorial decisions. What do we need admins to take a look at? lifebaka++ 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A poor read of the revision on my part. Having totally missed the obvious, I thought something more nefarious was going on. My objection should have been to the inexplicable removal of entire sections, which I can deal with on my own. Thanks, and sorry for the distraction. Allreet (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Current event election

{{admin help}} User talk: GaneshBhakt seems to be a new editor. I was away from the page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 for a few days to return and find a move war going on. Another editor had an issue with him [43] (which is viewable on 1 May). In addition to other reverts this format issue was undone by him, then this ip edit was undone (note the edit summary). Finally he reverts blindly all edits to add uncited content and remove cited content. and he continues to do [44][45][46][47]. He seems to think the onus on copyvio issues is to prove theyre copyvios instead of the other way around to prove theyre okay. which is more serious to wiki[edia.

I warned him on his page that while his initial edits were WP:BOLD, per WP:BRD he needs consensus to get the formatting he proposed on to the page. Something he has not done on the page (which can be viewed from talk), and he continues to call me a vandal.

Furthermore, can someone see his edit contribs [48]: "Deleted baseless allegation, I cannot provide coyright permission if reader is blind. Further, he should see other images I uploaded and then bite me" + he's also made the ludicrous WP:CONSENSUS suggestion that "How could I get a consensus when User:Jayantanth was against one?"Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I add, see the [49] he said me that the next time you re-add a bogus file deletion tag. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas never stopped vandalizing West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. The "dispute" was regarding the name of the article and also a bogus "PUF" allegation by Jayantanth, but for apparently no reason at all, he has been reverting constructive, like the improved info and infobox, the updated phases, grammar, cleanup, copyedit, etc., edits on the page. He is welcome to add verifiable information but not under any circumstance revert the constructive edits made. I see he wanted to add the Gorkhaland section, and he is more than welcome to add it, but he has to stop reverting good faith edits made by fellow Wikipedians. If you reverts the edits again and continues to edit war, he will leave me no choice but to report him here. Thank You. FYI for admins, User:Lihaas and User:Jayantanth are targeting me together. You want proof? Here you go! GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the underlying dispute, I suggest you go easy on the vandalization accusation. Content disputes are not the same as vandalization. --rgpk (comment) 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside the stuff i undid which was good i immediatel;y restored [50][51]

And the initiated talk page idiscussion hs not been responded too desptie him coming online since [52] (again not edit summary)Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Clumpytree

Clumpytree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor as can be seen from their user page has no intent to respect policy, adhering to a NPOV, and is causing disruption going around imposing their view on Wikipedia, that of no mention of any titles for German royals, in spite of English language source practice of attributing titles to them. Check any English source, Google News or some such, for the people Clumpytree is removing titles from, they are not known as Mr Prinz von Hannover. I add the title (how they referred to in English) and a footnote that in Germany titles are abolished and legally part of ones name etc (I think a neutral approach), but they try to censor any mention of a title. I'm not sure what more I can do I tried to discuss it with them. - dwc lr (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The allegation made by dwc lr is wrong. I do not intent to violate Wikipedia policy, the statement on my user page refered to by dwc lr simply expresses my philosophical conviction that for a single person it is not possible to not have a point of view. Through the collaboration of many wikipedia can become a information source as neutral as possible. However, for such cooperation people have to be willing to recognize facts. It is a well known fact that there are no royal titles in Germany. I do not object that dwc lr writes that some people might be called royals, princes, or similar names (whether in the English language community or even in Germany itself). However if he claims that there is such a person as a "Prince of Hanover" in Germany (i.e. someone that is not just called that way, but actually is a prince) that is simply factual wrong. Clumpytree (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a POV, but when you totally suppress a widely held different view that is when a problem arises and what you fail to grasp. The fact that titles are not legally recognised in Germany was added. However even in Germany he is often called ‘Prinz Ernst August von Hannover’ and that’s not in the sense that it’s his surname. This is not the German Wikipedia, In English there is someone called ‘Prince Ernst August of Hanover’ not ‘Ernst August Prinz von Hannover’ - dwc lr (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute that some people call him "Prince" or "Prinz". That is not the point. We are not arguing about what he is called. There also is no difference between the German and English wikipedia on whether a statement should be factual correct. Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the German Empire (and all its kingdoms) ceased to exist in 1918. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No one claims otherwise. Is it Wikipedia’s problem that titles are commonly attributed to people? - dwc lr (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We would not have a problem, if you would not claim otherwise... Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Would appreciate your advice/action/eyes. User:Tbhotch and myself ran into some odd edits; I first noticed a long slew of edits on Ground of Being (Dzogchen) which removed references and stuff. I removed them here. Then Tbhotch reverted another set of edits by that same editor on Dzogchen (unverified commentary, for instance). The editor responded by calling us "clowns" and now by accusing us of vandalism--see this (for which I gave them a "personal attack" warning), this, and this. This has all the hallmarks of something that can easily get out of hand and I'd rather have this nipped in the bud and settled than escalated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Drmies and Tbhotch are definite vandals. They didn't even reference the discussion pages, or notice that I have been the editor of these pages for about one year. There is no unverified commentary. They obviously did not even read it, even now. Why not try reading it? Thigle (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not vandals. I don't see one cite in [53]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's one cite for that mass of text added. Hardly enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with NeilN) In Ground of Being, this version has 35 references. You first edited it on 11 May 2011, that is, yesterday. When you were done, it had none, and what was a relatively poor article had become something like a personal essay. There is no discussion on the talk page (you're not even on it), and this move was unexplained and had no consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• And in Dzogchen, this edit, adding more than 6,500 characters to the article, has "Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa" as the only reference. What does that even mean? So don't go around calling us vandals, please. Given that you have 324 edits, I will be happy to assume that you never looked at what vandalism means here (see WP:VANDAL), but I hoped that you would have looked at WP:V and WP:CITE. As for the talk page, I see an editor asking you to stop removing sourced text. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you look back at the old discussions about B9Hummingbird's articles in the buddhism pages? Wow. This is from about one year ago. I forget where they exactly are now. The general consensus is that they had to be rewritten from scratch because they were so cryptic. Thigle (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments are there. At least two editors disagree with you on individual points. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, because when you are reverting vandalism and disruptive editores you are conscious about old discussions in page you don't even know they exist, and not about [how important [is] to understand three things: the general original basis, the reality of the basis, and how ignorance manifests.] Have I to forget that this edit fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other polices/guidelines? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you but when s/he added a {{original research}} tag on the page (I'm not happy, though), in place of adding a simple and single source, s/he broke the 3RR 1, 2, 3; is needed a block? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a report to the 3RRNB before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Clumpytree

Clumpytree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor as can be seen from their user page has no intent to respect policy, adhering to a NPOV, and is causing disruption going around imposing their view on Wikipedia, that of no mention of any titles for German royals, in spite of English language source practice of attributing titles to them. Check any English source, Google News or some such, for the people Clumpytree is removing titles from, they are not known as Mr Prinz von Hannover. I add the title (how they referred to in English) and a footnote that in Germany titles are abolished and legally part of ones name etc (I think a neutral approach), but they try to censor any mention of a title. I'm not sure what more I can do I tried to discuss it with them. - dwc lr (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The allegation made by dwc lr is wrong. I do not intent to violate Wikipedia policy, the statement on my user page refered to by dwc lr simply expresses my philosophical conviction that for a single person it is not possible to not have a point of view. Through the collaboration of many wikipedia can become a information source as neutral as possible. However, for such cooperation people have to be willing to recognize facts. It is a well known fact that there are no royal titles in Germany. I do not object that dwc lr writes that some people might be called royals, princes, or similar names (whether in the English language community or even in Germany itself). However if he claims that there is such a person as a "Prince of Hanover" in Germany (i.e. someone that is not just called that way, but actually is a prince) that is simply factual wrong. Clumpytree (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a POV, but when you totally suppress a widely held different view that is when a problem arises and what you fail to grasp. The fact that titles are not legally recognised in Germany was added. However even in Germany he is often called ‘Prinz Ernst August von Hannover’ and that’s not in the sense that it’s his surname. This is not the German Wikipedia, In English there is someone called ‘Prince Ernst August of Hanover’ not ‘Ernst August Prinz von Hannover’ - dwc lr (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not dispute that some people call him "Prince" or "Prinz". That is not the point. We are not arguing about what he is called. There also is no difference between the German and English wikipedia on whether a statement should be factual correct. Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the German Empire (and all its kingdoms) ceased to exist in 1918. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No one claims otherwise. Is it Wikipedia’s problem that titles are commonly attributed to people? - dwc lr (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We would not have a problem, if you would not claim otherwise... Clumpytree (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Would appreciate your advice/action/eyes. User:Tbhotch and myself ran into some odd edits; I first noticed a long slew of edits on Ground of Being (Dzogchen) which removed references and stuff. I removed them here. Then Tbhotch reverted another set of edits by that same editor on Dzogchen (unverified commentary, for instance). The editor responded by calling us "clowns" and now by accusing us of vandalism--see this (for which I gave them a "personal attack" warning), this, and this. This has all the hallmarks of something that can easily get out of hand and I'd rather have this nipped in the bud and settled than escalated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Drmies and Tbhotch are definite vandals. They didn't even reference the discussion pages, or notice that I have been the editor of these pages for about one year. There is no unverified commentary. They obviously did not even read it, even now. Why not try reading it? Thigle (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not vandals. I don't see one cite in [54]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's one cite for that mass of text added. Hardly enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with NeilN) In Ground of Being, this version has 35 references. You first edited it on 11 May 2011, that is, yesterday. When you were done, it had none, and what was a relatively poor article had become something like a personal essay. There is no discussion on the talk page (you're not even on it), and this move was unexplained and had no consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• And in Dzogchen, this edit, adding more than 6,500 characters to the article, has "Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa" as the only reference. What does that even mean? So don't go around calling us vandals, please. Given that you have 324 edits, I will be happy to assume that you never looked at what vandalism means here (see WP:VANDAL), but I hoped that you would have looked at WP:V and WP:CITE. As for the talk page, I see an editor asking you to stop removing sourced text. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you look back at the old discussions about B9Hummingbird's articles in the buddhism pages? Wow. This is from about one year ago. I forget where they exactly are now. The general consensus is that they had to be rewritten from scratch because they were so cryptic. Thigle (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments are there. At least two editors disagree with you on individual points. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, because when you are reverting vandalism and disruptive editores you are conscious about old discussions in page you don't even know they exist, and not about [how important [is] to understand three things: the general original basis, the reality of the basis, and how ignorance manifests.] Have I to forget that this edit fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other polices/guidelines? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you but when s/he added a {{original research}} tag on the page (I'm not happy, though), in place of adding a simple and single source, s/he broke the 3RR 1, 2, 3; is needed a block? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a report to the 3RRNB before I saw this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Martin Hosking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Redbubbleroo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Unplge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HipsterHosking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:CaulfieldSouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is being attacked by the above newly registered users and, I believe, some IPs. Some understanding of what's going on can be gained at the BLPN discussion here. I'm not sure where to post this issue as it's a combintation of different issues, each one relevant to a different noticeboard, so I thought I'd just put it in one place where an admin can take action to block/protect/whatever. (I think there's a better user template that shows contribs, but I forget what it is.)--Bbb23 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This also, as noted at BLPN already, had a legal threat posted by an anon ip on the talk page to Martin Hosking. Kevin (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for now (set as a week). Courcelles 08:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Twofold indef-blocked and community-banned user requesting checkusers, needs a Ip range block on 79.117.160.0/20

I would like to notify the administrators that User:Iaaasi, who is a twofold indef-blocked and community-banned user, often returns to Wikipedia to request checkusers as a sepctre. It is true that the user against whom the checkusres are requested, may have some sockpuppets on Wikipedia, but Iaaasi is still a banned user and as such he has no right to edit the English Wikipedia. Yesterday, appeared as User:MateaKis that account was blocked and so does as an Ip editor today:[55].--Nmate (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And now there is one another "new user" to continue this:[56] and in the past, it gave some alleviation to the problem when a Ip range block was inflicted on 79.117.160.0/20 [57] [58]--Nmate (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And the checkuser request of the sock of Iaaasi suceeded ,again, even though I made about 40 reverts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 to try to hinder it. And as for,"I know that I am a blocked user, but this is not about editing on my behalf, but about treating the blocked users (me and Stubes99) in the same manner. Neither of us has the right to edit WP and we must benefit of the same treatment. In the name of justice, I respectfully ask you to block those accounts" [59]

Shortly after, Iaaasi again continued to edit Wikipedia via IP as well. [60] --Nmate (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The current range is somewhere within 79.117.192.0/19 instead. 79.117.160.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) is currently checkuserblocked. I haven't looked too closely, but you'd probably want a checkuser to make that block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock applied; let's see if sufficient. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

user in some sort of distress?

Don't know what's going on, but since Bakharev is away, this message apparently referring to whatever is going on at User talk:Bm gub2 might otherwise disappear into the ether. Whether anything needs doing I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like the IP may be acting on behalf of this editor whom they feel has been slandered on User talk:Bm gub2 with accusations of inappropriate promotional editing. Legal proceedings have been hinted at. There may be a case for removing the borderline-outing material on that user talkpage and/or renaming the accused account so as not to show up in Google searches. Skomorokh 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent removal of talk page comments at Talk:Bavarian B VI

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report it, but an unregistered editor has removed sections on the talk page 3 times despite my note on his talk page that this is not normal Wikipedia practice, except for archiving. I have no intention of edit-warring over a relatively minor issue and if I'm wrong so be it, but it needs clearing up one way or t'other or he may continue both here and elsewhere. Can someone help? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As I recall the policy, refactoring others' Talk page comments is considered vandalism, so you can revert such refactoring without running afoul of WP:3RR. In the interest of full disclosure, I have just warned the IP regarding that refactoring. I have also taken the liberty of posting the required WP:ANI notice on their Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan and repeated unwanted talkpage messages

I first asked SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to post on my talkpage on October, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet, so would someone please remind them that unwanted advice is unwelcome, as are pointless needling comments which have no intention other than to irritate me [61]

I am aware that I do not own my talkpage, but I have been repeatedly advised [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] that repeated unwanted talkpage contact is disruptive and potential harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that TreasuryTag is simultaneously posting to SarekOfVulcan's talk page, and given that SarekOfVulcan's initial comment doesn't appear to be be intended to be disruptive, I'm not seeing a whole lot of merit here. There is something to be looked in to regarding civility here and here. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He's posting to my RFA as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you're allowed to post crap on my talkpage but I'm now allowed to post relevant links to behavioural concerns on your RfA? That sounds reasonable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What did you expect. Posting to his page and then prodding him further after irritating him is tantamount to trolling giving your recent history -- trolling in the sense that they serve no purpose but to provoke a response from him. Can I ask what you were thinking there? I suggest an interaction ban between these two.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, Prodego, what do you suggest I do to prevent disruptive messages with no possible purpose other than to annoy me? Are they allowed as per policy? Or was my request that Sarek stop a fair one? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And this one. By crystal clear about this Treasury Tag. I don't care if you were baited or if you felt annoyed. These kind of edit summaries are utterly inappropriate. Incivility in an edit summary is a very serious matter. Take this as a final warning further incivility anywhere will result in your account being blocked to prevent further disruption of this project.
For future reference don't use edit summaries to address others and don't insert incivilities into them--Cailil ^talk 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The follow up comments weren't particularly productive Sarek, though I can understand your annoyance. Prodego ^talk 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone violates policies and guidelines, then they must expect messages of notification/warning to the effect from anyone. That they just happen to be from Sarek this time isn't all that relevant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban

I propose and interaction ban between User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan. I can't see any interactions between the two that won't lead to more unnecessary drama. They should be explicitly commanded not to poke each other in the future.Griswaldo (talk)

Proposal: User:TreasuryTag and User:SarekOfVulcan are banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because we frequently work in the same area (Doctor Who) and comment in the same discussions etc. I don't see any problems here that can't be solved by us voluntarily keeping a distance from each other where possible: today's conflict only came about because Sarek (for some reason) decided to butt into a thread on my talkpage and escalate things from there. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you and Sarek want to play nice then prove that you can play nice. When people don't play nice the only solution is to keep them away from each other. What do you plan to do on your end to ensure that such a ban is not needed? The community needs to be spared the drama so please start considering what you can do to reconcile with Sarek or at least to prevent these types of situations. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I first asked Sarek to try and keep away from me in October. It's not my fault that they declined. It's not my fault that they inserted themselves into an irrelevant topic on my talkpage today. It's not my fault that they followed this up with two needling and useless comments. If you can point to any aspects of my behaviour which has been picking fights with Sarek, I'd be glad to receive the feedback. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your reaction to his comment was certainly under your control and it didn't exactly deescalate the situation. The resulting drama in these situations are rarely caused by only one party, though often preventable if only one of the parties choses to take the high road. Will you consider handling these types of situations differently?Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  What is your specific suggestion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  All of your replies to SoV (particularly the two linked above), and [67] all seem to be attempts to bait him. While I agree that his subsequent edits to your talk page appear to have been attempts to bait you, I don't think either of you can claim to be a victim here. If you cannot leave each other alone, then an interaction ban may be needed. But hopefully you both can simply disengage here. I'd also note that it was you who "escalated" this to ANI. Prodego ^talk 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I did indeed escalate this to ANI, since I felt it was the best way of stopping the needling and un-necessary comments from Sarek on my talkpage. That has, indeed, worked, at least for the present. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)TreasuryTag told Casliber "If you're...so bizarre as to think that linking the word 'Europe' to Europe is a bad idea, then you'll excuse me for not valuing your feedback and asking you to keep it to yourself in future." I pointed TreasuryTag to WP:OVERLINK, which explicitly says "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". TreasuryTag reverted my comment, leaving his attack on Casliber in place, and trotted over to my talkpage to complain about the "unwanted input". Politely pointing out an error is not usually considered "butting in". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  There is no polite way to poke a bear.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  When someone says something really silly, pointing it out is not normally poking a bear. Otherwise we can close this shop right away. Hans Adler 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  While I agree in most cases, bear poking includes posting to talk pages of individuals who have asked one not to (see example #4 on the linked essay). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support; if these two find that being banned from associating with each other is detrimental to their editing, maybe that'll encourage the users in question to try and play nicely. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - if someone wont take reposnibility for their own actions then we have to hold them responsible--Cailil ^talk 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Confirming support after addition of the wording--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the merits of the proposed ban, could we get some wording in the thread so people know what they're voting on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  If the wording were something as mild as, "TT and SarekOfWhatsit are barred from editing each other's talkpages save for required notifications," then I would be content to support. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 15:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  An interaction ban is (taken from WP:ER) "Banned from interacting with or commenting about each other, directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means you are not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of each other". Prodego ^talk 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Prodego, that doesn't include AN/I, WQA, and other such noticeboards does it?Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  It does. And based on this thread that would be a good thing. Reporting the other user violating the ban would be allowed though. Prodego ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  You're probably right about that. I assume this also precludes Sarek from taking any administrative action against TT?Griswaldo (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think that is going to be a problem, but yes, it would. Prodego ^talk 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Already done -- I agreed not to use the tools against TreasuryTag a while back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support a ban along the lines of each posting nothing on the other's talk page, apart from mandated messages such as the "There is a discussion about you at AN/I" type. I would hope to the Gods that they could avoid even the latter, though that might be a triumph of hope over expectation.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - If users are having behavioral problems then deal with them as necessary with our current guidelines and policies, there's no need to add a bureaucratic layer of "I'm not sure if I can post here because he already did" nonsense. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I generally prefer to avoid interaction bans as well - if a user is disruptive we can block them. But this does make things a bit more clear, and looking at the history here that wouldn't be a bad thing. I am neutral in this case. Prodego ^talk 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, because this kicked off by pointing TT to WP:OVERLINK. Hardly the sort of thing that calls for an interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Distressing, childish stuff. That SoV is standing for a reconfirmation Rfa while commenting on TT's talk page when asked not to do so by TT makes it grotesque as well. Jusdafax 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• (EC)Trouts For All: As evidenced at various sections all over Wikipedia TreasuryTag and SoV do not get along at all. Can both editors agree not to involve themselves in the others talkpage with the exception of process mandated notices? Hasteur (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm also concerned because TT has 5 edits to the RfA of a user whom he doesn't wish to interact with. If TT doesn't want to interact with SoV, why is that? Additionally this and this. Talk page comments are not the only issue here. Prodego ^talk 16:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm. I wonder why I opposed in the RfA of a person who I consider to be thoroughly unsuitable to adminship. That was a pretty strange thing for me to do, eh? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I also have support this position. Sarek has likely learnt it is not a good thing to post advice on the talkpages of users you are in dispute with but the worst thing I find in this report is the rudeness and swearing in TT's edit summaries. These two strike me as unnecessarily gratuitously rude - here and hereOff2riorob (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, does TreasuryTag have any other interaction bans in force at this point?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No he doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Prodego that it's crass hypocrisy on the part of Treasury Tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Go chill out I think TreasuryTag and SarekofVulcan should both be mature enough to realize that antagonizing each other does no good. Just avoid each other, I think you could both handle that without interaction banning. If you can't, there are bigger problems. — Moe ε 16:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think this is the appropriate time. If anything, TreasuryTag deserves a big whack for bringing this to ANI and then reporting his own ANI report on Sarek's RfA in the third person (adding a 'regretfully' for good measure). Must say I admire the chutzpah though!--rgpk (comment) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Presumably Sarek doesn't deserve a "whack" for this helpful and constructive comment then? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  No comment since I don't know the context. But I was impressed by your chutzpah with the third person report! A "I have reported ..." would have been a lot more informative. --rgpk (comment) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I know you were impressed by the chutzpah. You mentioned that above, and you know I read that comment, because I replied to it. I notice that you have (still) avoided criticising Sarek in any way whatsoever, which is also a chutzpah in itself. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  As this is a collaborative project, it's very important to resist the temptation to snipe at other users even if you think they deserve it. Rather than constantly picking at any scab you can find, De-escalating issues will reduce drama and allow more people to get on with building an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1. I regret to have to note that Sarek has just been reported at ANI for repeatedly leaving pointless and unwanted messages on an editor's talkpage after being asked to stop multiple times. ....translates as...
2. After a spat on my talkpage I have reported Sarek to ANI.

• Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, and Sarek's still tracking my edits and reporting me at every opportunity. Splendid. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ...and clutching at straws in a seemingly desperate attempt to implicate me in wrongdoing now? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Both can work through this without need for more drama. If anything TT needs a trout for making mountains out of molehills. -- ۩ Mask 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a bad situation, but an interaction ban is not appropriate here. The fact that a user doesn't like the good-faith advice and warnings that other users post on his/her talk page does not make the complaining user a victim of harassment. Perhaps the complaining user should think about whether there's a good reason for all of those unwanted talk-page messages. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to compute the possible good reason for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at TreasuryTag's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support these two users need to stay away from each other for a little while. If they can't do it themselves, it's time for the community to give them a time out. -Atmoz (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Really, it's a bit like when two dogs supposed to work as a team get into a snarl-fest with each other. Either someone needs to haul them both off by their tails, or pour a bucket of icy water over them, or simply not allow them to work in the same harness-string for a while. In the absence of the virtual equivalent of tail-hauling or icy water, the only viable solution seems to be an interaction ban. And I'll add - if two dogs are fighting over a particular toy, then you remove the toy from both of them - so a topic ban may be another alternative or addition to an interaction ban. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake

I really don't know why I start ANI threads. Every damned time, it's turned into a stupid free-for-all in which every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me, nobody focuses on the original issue at all (which was Sarek harassing me on my talkpage – though since that came about through my alleged "crass hypocrisy" I guess it's completely justified?) and nothing get's done. For fuck's sake. Interaction ban, no interaction ban, do what you want. I would say, "Try to resolve the issue as best you can," but I know that would be an unrealistic expectation on my part. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not in conflict with you (at least not from my side) I comment on some of the issues as I see from a NPOV position - only yesterday I supported your position at the interaction ban another user was requesting from you, see my one comment in this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Interaction ban.3F - I also don't think Sarek was particularly harassing you (better if he had allowed other users to comment)- you were in the wrong and overlinking. Calisber had pointed it out to you but you had refused to accept his/her advice. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And what's your opinion on this then? Useful? Constructive? Appropriate? A good idea? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarak should have taken the hint and left you to it. However I do think you should have still held your tongue and that your rudeness wasn't called for. I don't think this report was called for and I don't think your comment regarding your own report at Sarek's RFA was called for either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While some of it was baiting for a reply, you don't need to make the situation any more useless, nonconstructive and inappropriate. By the looks of it though, it's heading that way. — Moe ε 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't recall ever having had any beef with TreasuryTag, but if you are in breach of policies or guidelines, I'd say you were fair game for comments on your talk page. Then you complain someone is hounding you when you just as happily hound him back – if that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's because you are the common problem TT, nobody else. If you disagree, you could try looking for some actual support for this idea that you aren't - I suggest you open an editor review, and you can have free reign to remove or compartment any post from a user you can show might have a reason to have a grudge against you. If the majority of remaining editors agree you're generally an all round collaborative & cluefull editor, then you can cite that link in future cases like this, where you clearly feel you are the victim in the inevitable drama. But in my view, you are the common cause of the drama, and you truly don't appear to see what your problem is, or worse, are fully aware and just working within the letter rather than the spirit. Your only hope if you can't prove this victimisation theory is if someone here will agree to mentor you who you can run your decisions and draft comments/replies past first, before you force the inevitable, and the next interaction ban focusses on protecting everybody else from you. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  ^ What Mick said. When you constantly throw out snide, smart-ass remarks and edit summaries, there's gonna be few people anxious to assist you when it comes right back at you. You reap what you sow TT. Actually, WP:KETTLE comes to mind here as far as a link goes. just sayin. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  er, yes. Really, stunning lack of self-awareness. "Every damned time...every editor I've ever had a conflict with turns up to disparage me... nobody focuses on the original issue at all". TT, maybe, just maybe it's got something to with how you conduct yourself. Ever thought of that? DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why a free-for-all? WP:MMORPG. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at TreasuryTag's talk page, I do not see any comments from SarekOfVulcan that would constitute harassment. In fact, SarekOfVulcan rarely posts to TreasuryTag's talk page to begin with. There is simply no defined pattern of offensive behavior intended to intimidate or otherwise make TreasuryTag editing unpleasant. —Farix (t | c) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are looking at the edit history because it seems that TT is deleting all of Sarek's comments so "looking at TreasuryTag's talk page," would not enable you to see the edits TT is complaining about. I'm not saying that you will agree with TT if you do look at the history, only that doing so is required to see the actual edits in question. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page history. In the last 500 edits going back as far as September 2010, SarekOfVulcan has only posted 11 comments, two of which were block notices and a third was a talkback notice. This is not counting removing an imposter's comment to TreasuryTag and removing a warning that TreasuryTag had removed ealier, but restored by an IP. —Farix (t | c) 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop this now.

I think the consensus is an interaction ban as proposed above, and if another admin agrees, will they please close this, If anyone thinks there wasn't enough reason before this now, this an/i certain gives enough. The two good editors clearly need some help in returning to more useful things than this, and the time to help them is right now, before things get even worse. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that the number of editors !voting oppose above are significantly outweighed by the number of editors !voting support – because I'm not convinced I see it that way. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- on straight votes, it's 6 support, 7 oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's no consensus, but it should be pointed out that 2 of the "oppose" !votes you counted are the two subjects of the proposed ban, yourself and TT. Without those, it's 6 support, 5 oppose, still no consensus for a ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to trout both editors, but I don't see consensus for an interaction ban here. Rd232 ^talk 13:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. At this point, unless the two volunteer for a self-imposed interaction ban, I don't see this going anywhere. Just stop bothering one another. If you can't both manage that, this may be a good time to take a Wikibreak. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus for a WP:IBAN, but WP:TROUTs for both seems to have it. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I question the basic competence of an admin who seriously thinks they can declare a consensus from the above discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where DGG sees a consensus, but I can assure you he's a very competent admin. -- Atama頭 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tussle with him sometime over some very god-awful applications and interpretations of Wp:BLP policy; that tune will change. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation/falsification of scholarly source by user Skäpperöd

Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation on Wikipedia from a scholarly source.

I noticed a manipulation of citation by this user a while ago and asked on several pages about the proper procedure in this case(without giving details)(see my request as of 1 May 2011) I have now confirmed that this was not a mistake but a conscious effort to manipulate a scholarly citation in a vulnerable subject(as some may know this often is cause of discussions)-mainly the naming of Polish/German cities

The manipulation happened here: [68] a quote was manipulated from "An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330" by Norman John Greville Pounds, Cambridge University Press 1973,page 241 The original quote was(and can be confirmed by google books search):

   "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Szczecin"

Edit manipulated the quote into:

   "By 1121 Polish armies had penetrated its forests, captured its chief city of Stettin"

The user who manipulated the quote now confirmed he did it on purpose and claimed he is following "Gdansk vote"(Per the Gdansk vote, Stettin is used prior to 1945, Szczecin thereafter. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)). However the Gdansk vote is a simple recommendation to use by editors when making edits on their own, obviously it doesn't allow to falsify quoted texts from scholarly books to show they use German names when they do not.

This is a direct quote from the book, not Wikipedia content typed by an editor. The user so far has refused to anwser if he manipulated other quotes from scholarly sources in the same way to show they use germanised names rather then their actual content.

User Skäpperöd has also been placed on notice before regarding his activity in Eastern European topics before: [69]

Since I believe manipulating the content of sources is a serious breach of Wikipedia principles(and such cases were discussed here before[70], I am requesting a warning to Skapperod to cease manipulation of other quoted content, demand to answer if he manipulated other scholarly content on Wikipedia, and a month ban on editing names content in articles concerning Polish-German history.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course quotations should not be altered, but if the editor thought he was following a consensus agreement this could just be an honest slip-up. It's not as though the quotation hhad been changed to mean something different. It looks like a mechanical process of name changing that was just wrongly applied. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment was left at WP:AN (diff) in response to the same question from MyMoloboaccount. MyMoloboaccount moved the question to AN/I but not the response; I copied the response over. —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have a bit problem with editing these pages here,I don't know the exact rules and Wiki servers seem to be dying today.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It goes without saying that literal quotations must not be changed. That includes attempts at bringing their wording in line with any Wikipedia naming guideline (no matter how valid or invalid the reference to the guideline is). However, it appears that Sk's edit was somewhat mechanically going through several instances of the name, so he may have just overlooked that it was a quote. I'm not seeing any diff to an attempt at discussing this specific issue with him. Did you draw the fact that it was a quote to his attention? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I did inform him Please explain why you changed a quote from "An historical geography of Europe, 450 B.C.-A.D.1330" and inserted non-existing text within it--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion occurred on Sk's talk page. I have left a comment there. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. Moloboacc indeed asked the correct question at first, but then Sk. and Volunteer M. immediately derailed the discussion, away from the issue of correct citation to an entirely irrelevant squabble over the application of the Gdansk vote, which was full of big-sounding assertions but devoid of actual arguments on both sides. Disappointing. I'm still not quite clear whether Sk. actually understood what the issue was, but if he did and didn't acknowledge the mistake that's rather bad, and almost inexplicable for an editor of his experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Have done this myself in the past, when adjusting text after WP:RM closes through notepad find and replace.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done it too. But the problem edit [71] does seem to demonstrate possible WP:COMPETENCE issues. He even changed the name in the code for Google books links and in wikilinks, which would (and did) break the links. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, when this appeared on my talk page I was pretty much distracted by the post just above and thought it is a Gdansk vote issue. I intended to apply consistency, per my e/s, but I now see that the edit actually changed a quote within a footnote. I had searched and replaced, and did not realize that I was messing with the mark-up rather than visible text. My bad.

I however maintain that there this is neither a "manipulation" or "falsification" of a source, as the bad edit only changed the spelling of a word, not the meaning of the quote. I also think that the timing is odd - the bad edit was of 30 April, and the notification as well as this thread were opened in the context of yesterdays dispute at my talk page and today's AN/I thread above. All of a sudden the old, long reverted edit is so important to raise it here? It was a bad edit, but it was online for not even two hours.

My bad edit was of 30 April 22:34 UTC, it was reverted the same day at 23:03 UTC [72]. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So, am I right in understanding that this error was made and corrected nearly two weeks ago? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Molobo's pontyness in brinking this up is pretty clear. It's part of the eternal re-run of WWII in Polish-German wikipolitics. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Deacon-you are not a neutral party here, I would welcome in view of your previous comments regarding Poles, Poland and Polish editors if you would stay out of this. Regarding Skapperod's claim that the notification as well as this thread were opened in the context of yesterdays dispute at my talk page and today's AN/I thread above this is incorrect-I asked about procedures and falsification of sources way earlier, here is the evidence

My question on ANI board on 30 April 2011

My question on 1st of May

I decided to post it here today with full details, as Skapperod confirmed that he did it on purpose and claimed he was acting per Wiki policies, and as he refused to answer my question if other quotes were manipulated on Wiki by him to show German names, even if they weren't using them[73]. My reason for this was that falsification of sources is a breach of Wikipedia principles and that other quotes could have been falsified since Skapperod seems to have claimed that is is ok to do so using Gdańsk vote. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

previous comments regarding Poles, Poland and Polish editors What do you mean? BTW, read NYB's comments on your friend's thread above (#Further_discussion): "parties should be able to disengage and to refrain from escalating this dispute". NYB was very favorable to Volunteer Marek, but this will definitely boomerang on you if you keep pressing it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment- this is clearly a frivolous and disruptive complaint. I can't see any reason for bringing this up weeks later, but to disturb Skäpperöd, who is a long-term content opponent of Molobo. The mistakes have been fixed long time ago, and they didn't even need much input by others - unlike many of Molobo's own article edits, that tend to be POVed to the extreme and are usually equally poorly worded. If you also check Molobo's habit of posting frivolous warnings at talk pages of other German users he happens to disagree with (and general combative behaviour in this respect), you'll see what I mean by linking this policy. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Skapperod comment

If indeed that was a mistake, then I am willing to let it go(initial reaction by Skapperod indicated that he did it on purpose and claimed Gdańsk vote as reason). I hope no such further manipulations of quotes to show they contain something that they do not will take place, and Skapperod will not mechanically replace all names with German versions in articles to avoid such mistakes in the future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. This discussion is resolved, then, and can be hatted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Move Proposal discussion at Talk:Corvette

Please take a look at the current move discussion at Talk:Corvette. It has just been relisted for the second time (so it's now into the third week). There is a clear majority opposed to the move but the discussion gets dragged on and on and on by supporters of the proposal in what appears to be an attempt to simply wear down the the naysayers into "surrendering". I am having great difficulty with AGF in this circumstance. I believe the discussion should be shut down as no consensus. Please help! Roger (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Majority ≠ consensus. Being one of the supporters of the move, I feel the same way; the opposers are trying to wear down those they don't agree with. Perhaps someone could read something into that. In any case, an uninvolved admin has twice relisted this contentious discussion. I agree that it probably would have been better for the discussion to be closed, but the relisting admin did leave a rationale as to why he/she thought another week would do the discussion good and I doubt a different uninvolved admin will want to wade in and say "Vegaswikian was incorrect to relist again. I have reverted the relist and closed the discussion as <insert rationale here>." Also, when requesting admin assistance, I believe it is best practice to leave a neutrally worded request, as opposed to asking the discussion to be "shut down" in favour of your personal opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the option is there to close the discussion at any time if the discussion establishes that there is or is not a primary topic. I should also add that the oldest discussion at WP:RM has been open for almost 2 months, so 2 or 3 weeks is not an exception. Even if the decision is to move, leaving the page where it is for a while longer does not create any problems. If the page does not get moved, again there is not a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew)/Barong

After reading the history below and given some recent events I thought I should bring the gross incivility at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) to attention.

I am inexperienced with linking diffs, but these are the most flagrant lines in the discussion: "fuck that. I'm a person and I will not let you list me there "don't be a troll".

In addition there are massive assumptions of bad faith, and many diffs that while not being particularly objectionable in terms of language or personal attacks, are still leading to an atmosphere of stunning incivility on that discussion. Specifically there are a lot of 'wink and smirk' type comments ( 1 2 3). While not being on their own worthy of a ban or other action they show the level of discourse quite well. using winking emotes and baiting while linking to irrelevant RfCs to cast aspersions are not the kind of behavior I'd expect from an editor who has been warned for his behavior.

Given everything below it seems that consensus was to allow him an account to edit under and "try to get it right", his immediate engagement in personal attacks and contentious editing obviously show that further action is needed. Rather than turning a new leaf the user seems to have immediately started a contentious repeat MfD and acted extremely poorly in its course. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The MFD may not succeed but it has received some endorsements and is perfectly reasonable. The comments cited may not win any awards for civility but aren't beyond the pale, given the circumstances where Barong believes the list is targetting people (including him, before he removed his name). Rd232 ^talk 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it does, given that he was given the ability to create an account below with "the hope he turn over a new leaf" and immediately went to work insulting, insinuating and instigating. It's clear he does not understand the behavior expected of him and his return to incivil editing merits another look at the community ban proposal. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HominidMachinae. Perhaps you do not realise that Barong often adds a wink to his edit summaries. He is not smirking or being smart, it's just a thing he does. The above diffs, while they show he was angry, hardly seem to warrant opening a ban discussion. The recent one failed, after six days on the board. I am pretty sure the community is done with this thread and these recent diffs are not alarming enough to warrant a community ban. I would suggest you allow this thread to archive without responding any further. Thanks. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've said my peace I have nothing more to add, I just felt it should be added given what was said under the resolution before about turning over a new leaf, ect. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct if I'm wrong. Is Barong & Jack Merridew the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. cf User:Barong. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the Barong account will be blocked. Why isn't the IP blocked? GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume too much, and why on earth should that IP be blocked? ;> Barong 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another recent example is "yes, we know you're a wp:dick, colonel ;". I agree with HominidMachinae that this is not the behavior expected of an editor who is being given yet another last chance. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• HM's prolly another sock.
  Moar clueful eyes needed at:
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination)‎
  It's wiki-game-play with the intent of creating a class of attack page that can survive an MfD. Rangda 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I was wondering who Rangda was and find it is yet another name for this same editor. What is the smiley for rolling one's eyes? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this user doing? And why? And what reason is there to allow him to continue? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Same user account he changed his sig. N419BH 06:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But he is supposed to have only one account, yet makes no effort to keep to one account, makes almost no main-space edits. The discussion below seems to claim that the situation is a mess. Personally I don't see that. It's a rude trolling sockpuppeteer. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you're talking nonsense. i have tens of thousands of useful mainspace edits on dozens of projects. I have more mainspace edits to the id:wp than you have to the mainspace of this project. and do not forget that we've met, before: Tu-154 crash, for example. Barong 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As a side note since forgetting to sign back in after a session expired the people voting for deletion over at the linked MfD are convinced I'm a sockpuppet of some retired/banned/whatever user or a user on the RIP list. I consider accusations of sockpuppetry to be the height of assuming bad faith, especially over a simple mistake any user could make. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

HM, this is a prime example of what Barong is up against. The stigmata seem to encourage other editors to run to ANI and stir up drama for any perceived offence, however minor. If you think a user is being uncivil, there are ways for you to deal with that. If your think that a user is not following a policy, or even (heaven forfend!) a guideline then there are ways for you to deal with that too. Heading straight to AN/I to seek blocks, bans, public whippings etc. is not the first step in dispute resolution. pablo 11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he *is* uncivil, and using multiple accounts, and he was unblocked through an agreement with Arbcom which he has now negated. And yes, there are ways of dealing with this. What way do *you* propose? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me to be using precisely one account.
What I suggest doing re incivility is the same as you would do with any other editor - discuss, warn etc. What I suggest not doing is attempting an end-run round an ongoing Arbcom case. pablo 11:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

think dude knows about wp:A/R/CL? ;> Barong 12:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@HominidMachinae, the reason people think you have been here before is not because you forgot to log in, but because of your unusual pattern of editing for a new user. Of your 200 edits, most are to wikipedia-space: most people do not end up at an obscure MFD discussion on their 200th edit.

@OpenFuture: Rangda links to our article on a Balinese goddess queen. You have used an incorrect link! User:Ranga is an unused account with no edits. Barong is not editing with multiple accounts.

@GoodDay: Why would you assume the Barong account would be blocked? The user was specifically told by an Arbcom member to open a new account. --User talk:John Vandenberg#Jack ;)

@Everybody: The case is now before Arbcom. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you mean User:Rangda, although sulutil:Rangda is more interesting. Barong 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John *asked* nicely. Barong 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John who? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you just trolling here, or have you not read Diannaa's comment to you above? pablo 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, I merely missed her response. Anyways, I'll leave this case in the hands of administrators. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, I routinely read MfD and AfD as well as the reference desk, usually every day, and you'll notice in many cases I show up as an uninvolved editor in a dispute. I think this is a valuable service for wikipedia: having people that have no vested interest in a debate's outcome and will look at it only on what they feel is the correct policy. You'll also note I've been active in policy discussions as well, especially related to the articlespace work I do do, at new page patrol. It might look strange but it happens to be what I enjoy and feel I'm good at. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. pablo 19:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

improper use of CSD F2

Musamies (talk · contribs) was attacking all the selected pictures on Portal:Bolivia (File:Chacaltaya Ski Resort.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Bolivia.svg, File:Cochabamba1.JPG, File:Cristo de la Concordia 02.jpg, File:Flag of Bolivia (state).svg, File:Lake Titicaca on the Andes from Bolivia.jpg, File:Licancabur Green Lake.jpg, File:Llama en la laguna Colorada Potosí Bolivia.jpg, File:Valle de la Luna - La Paz - Bolivia.jpg) as CSD F2 (Empty or Corrupt file). It does not comply with F2. The editor was here for over 3 years so he/she must know WP:CSD. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Those images do all seem to meet F2 - a description page for an image on commons. Prodego ^talk 19:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily blank, it does have Category:Selected pictures on the Bolivia Portal on them. — Moe ε 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ebe123, I will remind you to talk to the editor first before bringing this to AN/I. I don't know how you think it's possible to build an encyclopedia without communicating with others. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fetchcomms. Those F2 tags were completely valid as description pages on en.wiki for Commons files that should be deleted. Discussion should have taken place on the user's talk page before any accusations at AN/I. This is very inappropriate behavior. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that, I don't think these [74] [75] [76] are an appropriate use of rollback on Ebe123's part. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

XXmatt69X

Please block this user who's only importing unfree pictures, like on iPhone. Go and see its talk page. → Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: The correct user name is XXmatt69Xx1 (talk · contribs). I've also notified them of this discussion [77], since you hadn't done it yet. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in process of cleaning up the redlinks left by deleted images. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. File:Image24.png.png and File:Front_facing_camera_tight-thumb-550xauto-40570.jpg don't appear in anything right now. When TinEyeing the images, I just get a couple splogs for the former and nothing for the latter. Given the user's history, though, I am assuming they are copyright violations. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The effort to keep the iPhone article clear of unfree pictures has been a struggle for years, almost since the article was created. Even the main article picture has been argued over numerous times. Thanks for looking out for this. -- Atama頭 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Current event election

{{admin help}} User talk: GaneshBhakt seems to be a new editor. I was away from the page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 for a few days to return and find a move war going on. Another editor had an issue with him [78] (which is viewable on 1 May). In addition to other reverts this format issue was undone by him, then this ip edit was undone (note the edit summary). Finally he reverts blindly all edits to add uncited content and remove cited content. and he continues to do [79][80][81][82]. He seems to think the onus on copyvio issues is to prove theyre copyvios instead of the other way around to prove theyre okay. which is more serious to wiki[edia.

I warned him on his page that while his initial edits were WP:BOLD, per WP:BRD he needs consensus to get the formatting he proposed on to the page. Something he has not done on the page (which can be viewed from talk), and he continues to call me a vandal.

Furthermore, can someone see his edit contribs [83]: "Deleted baseless allegation, I cannot provide coyright permission if reader is blind. Further, he should see other images I uploaded and then bite me" + he's also made the ludicrous WP:CONSENSUS suggestion that "How could I get a consensus when User:Jayantanth was against one?"Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I add, see the [84] he said me that the next time you re-add a bogus file deletion tag. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas never stopped vandalizing West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. The "dispute" was regarding the name of the article and also a bogus "PUF" allegation by Jayantanth, but for apparently no reason at all, he has been reverting constructive, like the improved info and infobox, the updated phases, grammar, cleanup, copyedit, etc., edits on the page. He is welcome to add verifiable information but not under any circumstance revert the constructive edits made. I see he wanted to add the Gorkhaland section, and he is more than welcome to add it, but he has to stop reverting good faith edits made by fellow Wikipedians. If you reverts the edits again and continues to edit war, he will leave me no choice but to report him here. Thank You. FYI for admins, User:Lihaas and User:Jayantanth are targeting me together. You want proof? Here you go! GaneshBhakt (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the underlying dispute, I suggest you go easy on the vandalization accusation. Content disputes are not the same as vandalization. --rgpk (comment) 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside the stuff i undid which was good i immediatel;y restored [85][86]

And the initiated talk page idiscussion hs not been responded too desptie him coming online since [87] (again not edit summary)Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

bot archived adn unresolved issueLihaas (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 log entry reason

Resolved

 – block reason ammended Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Next time, please just talk this over with the blocking admin before bringing it here. This is an issue of rather minute (Compared to this or this) importance at best. It certainly did not need to take up 17kb on ANI. NW (Talk) 03:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This account or IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 23:35, May 9, 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) changed block settings for Sarah777 (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (racism, battleground behaviour and total failure to adhere to the most basic principles of editing in a collaborative environment continuing even during a block.) View full log To any concerned administrator: I am filing this under "incidents" because it involves the placing of a block and the block reason summary given at that time, making it an "incident". I am extending the request of the user, who refers to the formatting of the specific log warning notice recreated above; I felt it should be presented here faithfully. In a single edit to her talk page early this morning, the user questions how the block affects another editor living with her, and also questions the use of the word "racism" in the block log and its appearance on the top of the page. Thryduulf (talk · contribs) responded to the residential issue, but did not mention Sarah's objection to the use of the word "racism". After a long period of thought, all day in fact, I had decided to come to this page to protest that exact thing without actually knowing whether it had been changed. I began by typing this post after seeing the notice wording unchanged and have since beginning the post discovered that the user, Sarah, is objecting strongly to the word as well. Similarly, several posters at the entries above this one (if not yet archived) have objected to the irresponsible and casual use of the word racism. Sarah is not a racist; she objects to the rule of the former British Empire over her country and its legacy. She protests strongly against symbols and arguments from others, conditions which she feels foster continued imposition of the effects of that rule. These are my recollections, you can read in her words her own objection she wrote a few hours ago. It is unacceptable for this notice which defines her personally as practicing "racism" or in other words labels her a "racist" to appear on her talk page edit window and contributions page. Sarah faces an indefinite block, for which she has the offer to argue against in time. She may well do that, however I am calling immediate attention to her objection, a feeling which is shared by several in this community. There is certainly precedent to "unblock" and then "reblock" to revise a block reason; in her case that very thing was done for an earlier episode, on 21:27, January 25, 2008: "Ioeth (talk | contribs) unblocked Sarah777 (talk | contribs) ‎ (tweaking duration and reason)". Please consider this a formal request to each administrator who reads it: will one of you please revise this block reason, perhaps made in haste, but obviously objectionable and reckless in its application of a very powerful social stigma. I don't want to get into a "legal threats" situation, and this is certainly only a request and not a threat, but in some contexts the current warning might be considered libelous. And then, will each of you also take very seriously the use of words in your summaries going forward to avoid the fecklessness that such block reason summaries as this one give acceptance to. It is not appropriate for any individual with administrative powers in any situation to casually color another with this term in a public posting viewable by potentially millions of people. Please revise the warning and contemplate developing collective wisdom to avoid using such summaries in the future. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (a) that sounds like a "legal threat" to me; (b) she said that being "British" was "an institution with a history of genocide". Racist sounds about right. DeCausa (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Racist might have the correct sentiment it is the wrong word; her rants are plain hatemongering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ?????? How on earth? "The British race"? or what is the point here? The Irish are a different race from the British? what are they? Green? Purple? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) There is no such thing as a "British race." pablo 08:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Red herring. In most anti-racist legislation (incitement to racial hatred laws etc - mainly in Europe), no distinction is made between "race" (a word which of course has no universally recognized meaning), ethnicity and national origin. To describe an entire nationality as an "institution" with the genocidal tag is racist. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) No, it's not. That statement is not racist. See Racism. --HighKing (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe a red herring, although there was no intention to distract. pablo 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Take your pick from the many diffs presented in the threads about her for examples of hate speech. Whether the target of the hate is a "race" or not seems to be splitting hairs unnecessarily. Regarding whether British is a race or not - on many forms where I am asked for my ethnic background the first two options are "White British" and "White Irish". This suggests that at least the British government regard "British" as being a separate ethnicity to "Irish". Were someone to preach violence against people of another ethnicity (I'm not saying Sarah has done this) they would rightly be labelled as a racist; as would those who practised discrimination against the Irish. I do not see justification for rescinding the word "racism" from the block log. Also do note that the phrase you quote about a history of genocide was not the reason for her block (she was already blocked when she made this statement), it is thus irrelevant to determine whether the reason given for the block was correct or not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) bullshit. I suggest then that "Socialist Nazi antichist witch" be added. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf, your response is self-conscious, as was the block summary reason. It works too hard to justify itself. Objections to revising the summary are weak and splitting hairs on a different level. My objection is to the casual application of the term in a highly public way. The word is too powerful and accusatory to use in this way and should be avoided with prejudice in any circumstance, and specifically here it should now be removed in light of the many objections to its use and the use of the term "hate speech" above. Each admin who reads this has a chance to revise the block log summary. As long as it continues to be displayed using the words shown above, the project suffers. You wrote "I'm not saying Sarah has done this" in parentheses, yet won't act to remove something that instantly groups her with advocates of violence and institutional discrimination. If you are "not saying" it, don't. You and other British editors are in effect playing the race card, should you really be doing that given the objections? If you are sincere about disliking racism, protect victims who truly suffer from it and do not play casually with the application of the term. If there is any question about its use, don't use it. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Sswonk (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I mulled over reblocking with the word removed, and I may do so. But I do think the word racism was not reckless, but a good faith characterisation of her actions. Firstly because some of the hateful comments used by Sarah do appear to be racist, or at least extremely hateful towards the British. There is no reason to allow such things on this project. Secondly; Sarah is objecting to the characterisation of her words/actions as racist - I'd strongly encourage her a moment of self-reflection on the sorts of things she has said of editors here over the last few days, and consider whether editors subject to her disdain might perhaps have felt the same as she does now... Having read through the entire original AN/I and associated information, Sarah has an extremely hateful attitude towards the British - instead of expressing her very valid point about that flag in an objective and polite way she seems to have used it as a soapbox to heap abuse on our British editors. The argument being made is that "British" is not a race; fair enough, but largely irrelevant and akin to Wiki-Lawering. However, in the interests of de-escalating I am willing to re-block, removing the word "racism" and replacing it with "hate speech". That is a more PC description of the reason for her block --Errant (chat!) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Just remove it. Whatever you change it to will be unacceptable to Sswonk for whatever reason, and will just invite more grandstanding. Sarah can have a full and unconditional apology for this 'racist' slur for all I care (you never know, it may spur all the people not-so-subtly suggesting HJMitchell is a member of the EDL/BNP to do likewise). Anything to bring the focus of the community back onto the fact she's not said a single thing on the other 23 words in the block rationale, and continues to use her talk page to air her general political grievances and grief other editors, rather than show she Gets It. MickMacNee (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Good man Mick! Keep the pressure on on Sarah to grovel and apologize! Nice one. While giving a back-handed reason to correct a thoroughly wrong block reason. I know you're a stickler for correct procedures and definitions as evidenced by your verbosity gracing these pages on so many occasions, so I'm surprised you've not spotted the *error* and stuck to your principals. So much better to get the digs in, eh? Shame. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I've no problem with her feeling pressurised to acknowledge and apologise for her wrong doings, as outlined in the 23 other words of her block reason, and our procedures and principles. Whether the other word is strictly correct or justified, well, shock horror, it's hard to have real sympathy after all these years when she's hardly let accuracy or truth get in her way before. So she's not a racist. Fine. Remove it. I honestly don't care, because it's a side show. And the "grovel" stuff - that's all your spin tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) WP has become a political institution to satart legislating now?Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) According to Racism#Legal, racial discrimination can apply to nationality as well as ethnic origin. —BETTIA— talk 13:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Great Britain is an Island, composed of the countries Wales, england and Scotland. United Kingdom is a union of these countries and Northern Ireland. "British" does not actually refer to nationality or ethnicity or race. But in any case she was clearly not talking about people from the Island of Great Britain (she talked about an institution) and hence it is no more racist than saying the the US government sucks. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Excellent summary. For those that need examples: the definition of racism is to imply a certain set of traits or capacities *due* or as a result of their race/ethnicity/etc. For example, saying that Irish people are drunkards or alcoholics. That's racist. Saying Americans are dumb. That's racist. Calling French people surrender monkeys. That's racist. But what Sarah said is not racist. --HighKing (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I agree that calling Sarah777 racist from the statement about Britain is incorrect. That is not a racist statement in any way shape or form. And I have a very wide and inclusionist definition of racist. She is clearly referring to Britain, the government/institution, and it's history of oppressing ethnicities. This is a correct statement, and does not refer to people in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC That is exactly where you are wrong. Firstly, a citizen of the United Kingdom is termed "British". It's the official legal nationality and it's on the passport. Have a look at British nationality law. Secondly, she was clearly not talking about the government. She said that being "British" was a genocidal institution. She was clearly talking about the British people, which means, just to repeat, 60million citizens of the UK. That is a racist slur.DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) No. That's exactly where you're wrong. British is *not* a race, it's a nationality and a description of citizenship. They are not the same things. Secondly, have you looked at what Sarah said? "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland" So how can she be talking about "British people" when she explicitly states that she's referring to the British institution which means the official offices of British rule? As much as we'd all like to punish anti-British vitriol, let's try to be accurate and stop unnecessary emotional inflation of the issue. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I never said it was a "race". I said it was a nationality. I was responding to OpenFuture who thought it wasn't a nationality. So what point are you trying to make? Also, she doesn't say she's referring to the "British institution" which you morph her statement into and which you then helpfully add your own definition: "the official offices of British rule". Where's that come from?! You've just pulled all of that out of the air. No, she said: British is an institution, and not only that, but that it is an institution with a "history of genocide". That can only mean that British people have a history of genocide. So, no that is exactly where you've got it badly wrong. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Now you're just obfuscating and this is getting silly. You originally attributed Sarah with saying that being "British" was "an institution with a history of genocide" (my emphasis). It's not reasonable to reach that meaning given the quote. My interpretation above is a reasonable interpretation, give common usage and definition of the term institution defined as any structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals within a given human community. As it turns out, common sense has prevailed and the racism remark has been removed, case closed. --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC) It is silly and the case is now closed. I have no idea why you posted your mesage of 15:38. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Problem solved: [88]. --Jayron32 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I made a bit of a mess out of this, as I didn't get an edit conflict when I revised the wording myself 2 minutes after Jayron. It might look like I'm saying the language of Jayron's rationale was inaccurate, but that isn't the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sarah777 ain't a racist, she's anglophobic. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:93.97.194.200

Moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please review the talk page of this editor who refuses to sign talk-page comments and will not communicate about his or her behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I see the only real issue relating to this editor is their disdain for signing their talkpage posts, their comments and other edits being otherwise apparently aimed at improving the project. If their intent were not so in keeping with the aims of the encyclopedia I would have placed an indefinite block - to be lifted upon their undertaking to sign their comments (and address any other issues) - on the account. In this instance I think it would be best to warn them that such "impoliteness" will no longer be tolerated and that they will start receiving increasing but short term blocks if they do not change their habit. I would also give them notice that they can set their preferences to remind them to sign talk page edits. How do others see this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore - if their only problem is not signing posts, then leave them alone. So far as I know, failure to sign doesn't break a rule, and if we were all that keen on mandating it, then we'd just force the software to do it for us (as in some other wikis). In fact, we should probably apologize for pestering them in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I'm taking the user talk page off my watch list, then. I certainly hope that their unwillingness to fulfill a small courtesy like signing one's posts and the refusal to discuss it when brought to their attention doesn't indicate a generally uncollegial and uncollaborative attitude. Guess we'll find out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, sometimes that's all one can do, BMK. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Drmies: If by "Take it easy" you mean "Don't get your buns in an uproar", I'm not. I've literally done what I said I would do, and I'm not dwelling on any potential future problems -- in other words, I'm cool. If, however, you were just using is as a pleasantry ("Have a nice day"), then... thanks, you too!| Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• The latter is exactly my meaning. I don't know about you, but it's cocktail time here and I'm sipping on a margarita. But note, I wasn't *just* using it as a pleasantry--it's a real important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Later! ;) Drmies (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Any time can be cocktail time! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu comes to mind. If an editor persists in ignoring community norms, refusing to adhere to a widely-expected mode/form of communication, then sanctions are not outside the realm of possibility. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree w/Tarc here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the closing admin had to say in re Docu:

There was indeed support for a block, had Docu not heeded this RfC. However, Docu did heed the input and either way, most admins would be so wary of blocking over a guideline unless there was a policy breach to go along with it.

What I take from this is that if there's no policy violation, then there's no block. Besides, Docu was an admin who should be well versed in our standards. In this case, we're dealing with an IP. Blocking an IP, even one who has been advised about our arcane practices, squarely crosses the WP:BITE line. If we're going to get all upset over something so trivial, then just submit a programming request that automatically signs ever talk page contribution so we don't have to waste our time as well as risk alienating new editors. Rklawton (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is worth a shot? (If not, just revert me)  Chzz  ►  02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Stalking by user Rlandmann

I have been experiencing a problem with Rlandmann, who has been following me onto every article I edit, and systmatically deleting or altering the content (examples ZMC-2, Naval Air Station Grosse Ile, Stealth helicopter, Martin AM Mauler, Grumman AF Guardian, McDonnell FH Phantom). At first he tried to say he was an experienced Wikipedi user who just wanted to help, but recently his comments on my User talk:Ken keisel page have become increasingly abusive, and he has started vandalizing articles I have edited (Yankee Air Museum). He has stated that no one can ever add any information to a Wikipedia article without a reference, which was not supported by the Wikipedia page he referred me to, or the activities of other editors he has ignored on the same articles. In addition, he has been systamatically deleting additions I have nade to articles, even thought the information is factual, non-controversial, and expands upon information already present. He has also taken it upon himself to make disruptive edits to articles that are outside his area of interest for the sake of his "rules". I use for example his edit war on the Yankee Air Museum page. I am a member of this organization, and can attest to the accuracy of the addition. Rlandmann is not a mamber, has no connection with the organization, and has no reason to believe the information is incorrect. I have advised user Rlandmann that his behaviour constitutes internet stalking, and that any further postings to my User talk:Ken keisel page, or continued alterations of my edits on Wikipedia, will result in a police report being filed against him for internet stalking. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:No legal threats, as well as WP:Wikihounding, and consider if you'd like to rephrase that a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, other editors checking here should review #User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This filing is an inverse of, and relates to, the section above at #User:Ken_keisel_adding_unsourced_material, where this user making legal threats has already been noted and action requested by me. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also please note that the user filing this complaint failed to notify the admin that he was making the complaint against. I have informed him that this conversation exists. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This situation is extremely unfortunate. It's clear that Ken Keisel is very knowledgeable about the topic which he contributes to, but somehow nobody seems to be able to get through to him about the importance of reliable sources. If we could just somehow convince Ken Keisel to add the sources when he adds the information this would be over with. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Every contribution I have made thus far has been referenced, with the exception of a paragraph added to the Yankee Air Museum article. What is being argued is the validity of my contributions when I have failed to add the page #, and that paragraph added to the museum article, which only lists the location of their aircraft while their museum is being rebuilt. That information is both non-controversial and non-threatening, but has become the object of a huge fuss by a small number of users. I am arguing against Rlandmann persistantly following my every movement of Wikipedia, even onto articles outside his area of interest, and altering or deleting their content. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you haven't withdrawn your legal threat above in your posting here. As per WP:NLT we can't deal with anything else until you have withdrawn that. That pages says "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What suggestion do you have for dealing with an editor whose behaviour fulfills the legal requirements for "online stalking"? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is all outlined in WP:NLT, but until you withdraw that threat this conversation cannot continue and you will probably be blocked until it is resolved. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, your claim that all your contributions are referenced are clearly false. Most of your edits claiming to add citations in fact only adds the "citation needed" tag. You need to find actual references. Otherwise we don't know if you are just making it up or not. For other users to undo your edits when they don't have references is *not* stalking. You need to withdraw your threat and apologize, and then start adding references when you add information in the future. If you do this I assure you that Rlandmann will either leave you alone, or in turn get blocked. Harrasment and stalking is not allowed on Wikipedia either. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As Ken keisel (talk · contribs) has refused to withdraw the legal threat despite repeated notices both here and on his talk page regarding WP:NLT, I've blocked the account. Should other admins disagree with this action, there's no need to check with me before unblocking; although it is my belief that the user should need to either withdraw the threat, or discontinue their article editing while they pursue external legal avenues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Alam567

Resolved

User replied on my talk page Rklawton (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"New" user with multiple problems, the most obvious of which is the user's claim to be an admin. As this is new to me, I thought I'd bring it up here for a 2nd look. Rklawton (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777

This user has been chucking out her usual disgusting 'British nationalist' invective masquerading as comments about NPOV and how it's achieved here or not tonight [89][90]. She's inviting flame wars and then some with analogies of the Union Flag to the German Swastika, and calling other editors brain dead or agents of genocidal empires. It's not even over an article, but a poxy talk page banner. She's not just crossing the line with this shit, she's bulldozing it frankly. Is it really too much to ask she be indef blocked until she gets it? A query as to her behaviour from another editor was unsurprisingly removed as "trolling" in her eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

With a block log that long and diffs of comments as disgusting as those two, I would say not. However, she should have a chance to defend herself and promise to tone down the rhetoric (a long way) if she wants to, before any action is taken (not that I can do much about it without my mop even if we'd got to that stage). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great_Irish_Famine#Sarah777_restricted specifies that Sarah may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. It was enforced once, for a week, [91] I noticed Sarah attempted to start a fight at British Isles and Talk:British Isles today. Whatever has caused her new lease of life for this anger, I think it best that she be banned from the relevant articles so that the question of a permanent ban for Sarah doesn't rise again (she is productive in some areas). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to impose an article ban but am witholding action until Sarah has a chance to respond. I have notified her on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest waiting 24 hours from your post on her talk page, which would be 02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC), to see if she's willing to agree to tone it down of her own accord. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I like Sarah, but I agree those edits were out-of-line. I would be happy to offer any necessary support or mentoring, if it is any help. --John (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which edits would they be John? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree up to a point with GWH, however I am inclined topic ban Sarah777 from everything to do with Britain and Ireland, this problem is long standing and recurring far too often. The kind of interactions she's been having (for years) in this area is just not compatible with WP:5P. While I agree also with GWH and HJM that we should wait 24 hours, I have seen far too many disruptive users in this area start flame wars, see that its come to ANI, and then disappear for a week, at which point the 'storm has blown over' so to speak. Therefore I suggest that if there is no reply within 48 hours that remedial action be taken (i.e imposition of topic or article bans) to prevent further disruption of wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would say 48 hours is long enough to wait. You have to go back to 22 April to find the last time she spent more than 1 calendar day without editing Wikipedia. Maybe that's the cause of this latest episode, a build up of wikistress. But whatever, if she is indeed prone to it, she's clearly never learned how to manage it. There's not much point banning her from just Irish topics, I;m pretty sure that's all she edits, when not making these incursions into the BI arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how comparing the loathsome Union Jack to the nearly as loathsome Nazi Swastika can merit a block of any sort. It was under that banner that the physical and cultural genocide of the "Great Famine" took place in Ireland. Globally, the British Empire was more genocidal and for far longer than the Third Reich. This is a simple fact. So, I object to tagging Ireland-related articles with that excrescence? You bet. I abide by all the wiki-rules; but i won't be bullied into pretending that day is night. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is there is no "rule of law" on Wiki. Just a huge majority of British editors over Irish ones. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

...and the Irish ones object to her too! Might be best to put her out of her misery with an indef. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are article banned from Template:British English for one month. I will notify on your talk and the Arbcom case page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say Georgewilletc...I am forming a rather negative opinion of you. It seems you have ignored my point re Union Jack = Swastika. A fairly important point in all this. The English Queen is visiting Ireland in a week or so. But ZERO Union Jacks are on display. Why? Could it be the same reason there are no Swastika's flown in Germany these days? As for Irish editors objecting to me - just about every one who was not supine in the face of the imposition of British pov on Irish articles has been banned or left. What are left are largely the Loyalists and their allies. Not a very statistically valid sample it is that remains. Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

She's the British Queen. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, at least. Separate realms. She's British, and she's the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sarah777 clearly doesn't like to think of her as the "British Queen", though that's the common usage. "English Queen" I'd think of as tendentious, but she is however definitely the queen of the the geographic region known as England. At a guess, Sarah777 uses "English" rather than "British" because Ireland might at a stretch be called British (the British Isles include Eire) but the Irish might well object. How far should we go in accommodating people who want to bring old wars to wikiediting? Sdoradus (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The only place British English is written and spoken is in the United Kingdom. So-called British spellings, on the other hand, may be used, in whole or in part, in other parts of the world where English is the first or a primary language. Canada speaks and writes Canadian English, Australia speaks and writes Australian English, Ireland speaks and writes Hiberno-English. and so on. Whether the Union flag is also offensive or merely irritating, it is, most importantly, wrong on any article except those related to the United Kingdom. Sarah777 is correct to insist on its removal, while those who argue otherwise are standing on quicksand, baiting her. If it had been done correctly in the first place, none of this would have arisen, and those involved are fully aware of the problems and the likely outcome. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I must be the first Wiki-editor to be blocked from a template simply for disagreeing with the dominant contra-WP:NPOV pov! Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that, from this comment, you have no understanding why you were banned indicates that this sanction is not going to be enough. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain it then. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pursuing a point of view is not a problem. Expressing it as though you are a 12 year old having a tantrum is. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• - It is clear that User:Sarah777 is completely disruptive in any Irish/British/UK article and I support her complete topic ban from the whole area. Her contributions are detrimental to the whole sector. - she is refusing to accept GWH administrative action against her - lets just get it over with easily and topic ban her completely from all articles connected to Ireland England or the United Kingdom forever. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Great idea! Yes, why not ban all Irish editors from all articles connected to Ireland! That will really make Wiki WP:NPOV. And, pray tell, where have I refused to comply with Georgewillecetra's ban? Any diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

diff on your talkpage, personally I would block you for the uncivil and attacking comment alone ... "Nope. Not under any Arbcom ruling. Under your piss poor judgement. A template isn't an article, btw. Look it up." - User:Sarah777 - Your opinionated partisan contributions are a clear disruptive net loss to the project imo.Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The hate speech used here by Sarah777 is quite obviously unacceptable. I've rarely seen any other user display such a persistent battleground attitude and survive on the project for more than a few months. In additionto GWH's page ban mentioned above, I've also banned her from British Isles and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, the main locations of her recent outbursts, and blocked her for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Full support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fully support Future Perfect's actions, and agree that her rhetoric is hate speech. I also want to note she has removed the notification of her ban from her talk page[92]. Is this logged at WP:RESTRICT or WP:AE so that others can enforce it?--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Log is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. If she wants to remove the notification from her page, that's her right to do. If she goes on to continue venting on her page, I usually don't tend to sanction that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the link. BTW I just noticed this lovely diff[93] wherein she infers that both of us (2 sysops) are trolls (this is her second removal tonight the other being your edit). With all due respect Future Perfect you might be prepared to allow Sarah to vent on her talk-page while blocked but I'm not. Any more flame edits while blocked and I will extend that block and revoke talk page access in line with WP:BLOCK & WP:CIVIL. She's had years of warnings and lesser remedies being tried and in my view, at this point she is stretching community patience--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 indef-blocked

Do I get this right? Has Sarah777 just been indeffed because she was irate that some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles? Regardless of what she did after being poked like that (the Nazi comparisons above do make me feel rather uncomfortable), this looks to me like the ever popular game of blaming the victim for the disruption. Maybe I misunderstood something, but this is how it looks to me. At this time of the night I can't do more than this superficial examination before going to bed. Hans Adler 23:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We categorically do not excuse behavior if taunted or baited, if one goes way over the line in response. Sarah777 went way over the line and appears to be exhibiting behavior and opinions that are difficult to reconcile with successful ongoing Wikipedia editing. We're not a battleground and she's clearly seeking one now.

That said, it would be appropriate for a review of the incident before she went irate to be done. While we do not excuse baitees for their abuses, baiters who taunt someone across the line are treated equally harshly. I have not examined back that far and am busy for several more hours tonight. I encourage other uninvolved admins with some time now to have a look and opine what you find... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No she was indefinitely blocked because after years of warnings to edit in accordance with WP:5 she has continued to violate an arbcom ruling and the British Isles topic probation that are in place to prevent disruption. She has breached site standards for civility and general conduct and after being blocked for a week she continued to do so. Hence HJM's indefinite (not infinite BTW) block. And for the record if he hadn't done it I would--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HJM specified "While in most cases inde(fi)nite does not mean infinite, in this case it does". Infinite. I am not comfortable with this. Moriori (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a decision HJM can make, reconfirmed admin or not. It is an opinion only, issued with inappropriate mockery. Bielle (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No mockery intended. I'm simply clarifying for the benefit of later admins reviewing the block what I intend the meaning of indefinite to be, since the software doesn't distinguish between 'blocked until you're no longer a problem', the more usual meaning, and 'blocked permanently', my intended meaning in this case. It doesn't mean it's irreversable any more than a 1 week block is a guarantee that she'd be blocked for 1 week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling is clear that If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Since Sarah77 was previously banned in 2008, and the ruling clearly states that one week is in the event of repeat offenses, can someone please readjust the block to use the correct Arbcom ruling? I'd say the original one week ban is probably the maximum in the spirit of this 4 year old Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, can someone point me to the anti-British comments at "British Isles"? I don't see any, and if that's the case, she should not be banned from that page either. As for the rest - clearly anti-British comments were made on those pages, and the Arbcom ruling is clear that Sarah77 may be banned from those pages as per the Arbcom restriction Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My action is supplemnatary to the Arbcom ruling. I made that block in accordance with... just about every behavioural policy and guideline ever written, not because she vioalted an ArbCom ruling. Otherwise, I would have called it an AE block, which really would make my block irreversible, but this is just an 'ordinary' block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should rethink this one - and I'm not sure I'm following. Either the blocks or bans fall within the Arbcom ruling, and the sanctions therein should apply, or you are taking other comments and acting on those independently. If so, would you mind posting up which comments you have decided justify this indef block which you are recommending as being infinite. This is a very serious block. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HK, a lot of us are sick to the eye teeth with the nonsense from both sides in this British Isles dispute. Sarah has had years to modify her conduct to come into line with the basics of site etiquette. Her refusal to do so is her problem just as LemonMonday's and TritonRocker's was theirs. While HJM does not have the power to permanently block anyone (no admin does) the Arbcom ruling allowed for a permanent topic ban (which was administered by GWH). Sarah777 is indefinitely blocked this is, as HJM explained suplementry to the arbcom ruling - not part of it - it's based on WP:5. Sarah777 now has the standard offer open to her, she can appeal her block directly to ArbCom, or she can have her block reviewed. She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible). And understand this plainly HK if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is more sick to the back teeth of the nonsense in the British Isles dispute than me. And while I might believe that the nonsense is one-sided, concentrated from a sock farm showing strong a British-POV, I do sometimes wonder why those disruptive activities have been allowed to continue unchecked for so long, and while the editor is allowed to continue to edit and disrupt to this day. Especially given the amount of times I've been threatened with a topic ban, or block, and yet I *do* edit within the previous 5 pillars. Makes me wonder .... --HighKing (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So anyone who expresses disagreement with this draconian block/ban exposes themselves to being blocked - as a default racist. This is getting too farcical for words. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful Rashers - that's not what I said. And read my remarks in full - I agree with Sarah being indefinitely blocked not permanently blocked. Be careful not to misrepresent other users please--Cailil ^talk 02:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful yourself. There was no misinterpretation of your stark comment above. Less of the threats please. RashersTierney (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rashers, I'm not going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting other's comments. Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5. If you find yourself worried by that I can't help you--Cailil ^talk 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no worries in that regard. Thanks for the clarification. RashersTierney (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What he wrote was "She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible)." He can't get out of the fact that does not say the same thing as "Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5." The first quote equates advocating for someone with active support of an act they might be accused of. Stripped down, what it explicitly says is "advocating for her" equals "agreeing with hate speech". In other words, suspension of habeus corpus and denial of right to representation are brought to mind. The second quote is not saying the same thing, Rashers. You were right to object, and what he did was not clarify but in fact obfuscate what he originally said. I am not misrepresenting anything, it is all there in plain English. Sswonk (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk this isn't a court this is an internet encyclopedia. Don't wikilawyer. You're not allowed advocate for blocked users. Disagreeing with a block is different. Advocating for her DOES mean arguing (wikilawyering) that comments like this are not in breach of site standards. She has been issued with another final warning by another sysop for this. In plain English Sswonk anyone who uses or endorses hate speech will be blocked. I would suggest backing off. Sarah777 has dug a very big hole for herself--Cailil ^talk 12:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, if to have an admin corps rally to "stop chuntering" means to have them fecklessly use these powerful sociological terms, "racism" and "hate speech", and weaken their meaning as in this case against Sarah, I think the project and also people who are truly victims of racism would be better off having the corps keep their chuntering to themselves. Sswonk (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I intend to review the behavior of all editors in the run-up to this incident. As of now, I cannot see justification for an indefinite block here. I will come back if and when I have anything further to say. --John (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• • This is clearly an arbitrary decision made by some people who wear their nationality on their sleeves. So what if people use analogies which would in PC world (as satirised in "Getting On") be considered offensive? It seems to me that the allegations of "hate speech" are being used as a crutch to further a dispute with another editor and that there is an element of ganging up and "gotcha" going on. Silent Billy (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Silent Billy, have you bothered to check where I'm from (in case you haven't I'm Irish)? And generally be careful of bandying about accusations of bad faith - I take them seriously. I'm expecting an apology/redaction/clarification of the above remark btw--Cailil ^talk 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Indeed you yourself have said that the Admin did not have the power to permanently block the editor. I see that you have said you were contemplating a similar action. Had you done so I would have had to consider your reasoning. But you didn't take the action someone else did and my comments are based on that action. I think the action taken does smack of "bad faith" and that's clearly not your bad faith but that's just my opinion. Do I have to keep quiet or do I have the right to say what I think? I'd be prepared to change my opinion if I saw evidence to the contrary. However it seems to me that the tone of your note is somewhat threatening in its tone and unjustified but I ain't crying about it. I can't what in the editor's posts constitutes "hate speech". "Robust" perhaps. Silent Billy (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• How about this for hate speech which she posted on her Talk page this morning: "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide. Robust my arse. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as hate speech in any definition. Sarah777's anger over the injustices against Ireland is of course misplaced, but the text you link to is 100% correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech or not, it is obviously meant to inflame and is completely unacceptable. Its correctness or incorrectness is beside the point. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it's meant to inflame, but poking and making others angry is something loads of editors do without getting even a caution here, so calling it "hate speech" is at least as inflammatory as the original quote. AN/I is not a free-for-all where you are allowed to say anything about others. The comment may be inflammatory, but it is essentially correct. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Heimstern, the post from OpenFuture is beyond crass and is best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd welcome an explanation of what you mean here. There is nothing crass at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have issued her with a final warning. If she makes one more racist, defamatory or otherwise uncivil remark then her talk page access should be revoked. She will remain free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee if she wants her ban reviewed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I endorse the indefinte block of Sarah777 for continued gross incivility and refusal to abide by the principles of WP:5P. I do not support an infinite block and would be happy to see her back under the terms of the WP:Standard offer, which specifically in this case would include a commitment to abide by all policies regarding civility and neutral point of view. I would not support an automatic release from the topic ban upon such a return. Should she accept the standard offer, and subsequently edit in the manner that lead to the current block then I would support a further block of at least 2 years with only a single warning. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 has shown herself to be one of the most singularly battleground-minded editors on Wikipedia. If she is allowed to continue editing here (i.e., if her block is lifted), she should be given no more opportunity to turn Wikipedia into a battleground, which is to say that she should be topic banned from the Britain-Ireland disputes, broadly interpreted.

I share Hans Adler's concern about British editors trampling Irish ones; I've seen it done all too often (the time a vote was used to decide the title Republic of Ireland was a particularly farcical example. How could the vote come out any differently when one side had a clear numerical advantage? There's a reason Wikipedia is not a democracy.) None of this can possibly excuse Sarah777's inflammatory nationalist rantings. Lock the door and throw away the key, whether through blocking or topic banning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I, too, endorse the indef-block. Of course not as a never-to-be-overturned "infinite" block (some of the blocking admin's rhetoric was unfortunate there), but as a normal indefinite block for disruption. As such it was well within the bounds of legitimate admin descretion in dealing with obvious disruption. To be unblocked, Sarah777 will need to demonstrate how she is prepared to mend her conduct, and right now I'm not seeing that she is prepared to acknowledge there's been anything wrong with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Heimstern got it quite right as to Sarah777 (I'm not familiar enough with other aspects of this matter to comment on them). HJ's block is a good indefinite block, and any unblock needs to conditioned on an indefinite topic ban. Before someone starts shouting for my head, I'm 100% non-English (as several Wikipedians can verify). T. Canens (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block - HJ has done a good indef block to the user. She will have to be civil, not personally attacking others, not be disruptive, and follow the five pillars of Wikipedia in order to be unblocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad block, all the way around. We had a contributor here whose contributions were a broad continuum, from good all the way to downright deplorable. That said, her problems were all in one area. She was already blocked for a week- the disruption was controlled, and could have been removed entirely by locking her talk page for the duration of that block. Instead of looking for a solution during that week- such as a community imposed topic ban to anything having to do with the United Kingdom or the Irish-British disputes, or consensus for a community ban, HJ imposes an "infinite block". There was no rush. No pressing emergency that demanded this. We needed to do something, I would support a pretty draconian topic ban that could have ed quickly to an indef, but I can in no way support HJ's actions here. There's a time to mash buttons and a time for sober reflection to defuse the situation, and this was the time for the latter. Courcelles 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And, with the greatest respect for you, my friend, there's a time to get off our arse, stop chuntering from the sidelines and show that the five pillars are not just recommendations and those who can not or will not adhere to them will be removed from this community, regardless of how many years they've been part of it or anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And, with the greatest respect for you, is civility not one of the the five pillars or are they just recommendations which you ignore at will. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the point Courcelles was making was that the community had already "got off their arse and stopped chuntering from the sidelines" and imposed a block and sanctions. You jumped in applied your own chosen outcome of an "infinite block". Would the ultimate outcome of the sanctions have been an indefinite block for Sarah777? Perhaps; but we had the opportunity to explore another potential dispute resolution path which you single-handedly and without discussion closed down. Given the concerns on your talk page that there is a potential appearance of you having a conflict of interest, it would not have hurt to discuss your intent to override the decision of a finite block and sanctions at the ongoing discussion here prior to performing the block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• As another uninvolved administrator, I also endorse the indefinite block as a normal administrative reaction to continued disruption, especially aggressive incivility and battleground-style conduct, as seen in the block log and recent contributions. I trust that HJ Mitchell will unblock Sarah777 as soon as he is convinced that the problems will not reoccur, although given her history this conviction will be difficult to achieve. (In case anybody cares, I'm neither English nor Irish, nor do I have known ancestors of either group.)  Sandstein  19:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Future Perfect's action is was the appropriate one, well measured, strong and fair. I don't think the extension to indef was ideal. Sarah was always gonna swear and insult anyone that blocked her, and this is what happens with users with Sarah's temperament. We have some scope for allowing them to vent, as this is how they reconcile themselves. At worst block access to her talk page for the duration. (It should be noted that generally users in British-Irish matters get away with more abuse towards each other than is the case elsewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps because such abuse is generally more common in Britain and Ireland culture than in North America). The extension brought in Hans Adler, and even though he admitted to not having looked over the case, Hans' comments gave an impression of a divided community voice; in turn these circumstances together encouraged a series of partisans from the topic area to come lend their say. Now the thread is hard to read, and everyone's time is being wasted. She admittedly has a terrible history of conflict stirring and polemicism, but she had been relatively good for a while. There's little point in doing anything more just now however, with what done being already done. With FPAS's bans already in place, once the week long arbitration block has expired Sarah can perhaps negotiate terms for returning to editing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think FutPerf's sanctions go far enough. And that's not to criticize FutPerf at all; he was working within the bounds of the AC case. I think what's needed here is not two or three article bans, it's a full-on topic ban from anything and everything to do with Ireland-Britain disputes. For that, since the AC case didn't offer discretionary sanctions, we'd need community consensus. A topic ban like that is, I'm convinced, the only way to fix this problem, and without such a ban, I continue to unreservedly oppose an unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• As a further observation, I don't think it was ideal that the user who imposed the permaban has a big English flag on his user page and edits lots of British military articles. Nothing wrong with any of this (and indeed most actual opposition to things Sarah wants tends to come in practice from other Irish, with English people generally being clueless and apathetic about the issues), and let me stress that I'm positive he was acting in good faith; however this will lend credibility to the cultural persecution narrative Sarah pushes as an excuse for disruptive behaviour. For future reference perhaps. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree. the admin who banned Sarah has the St George flag plastered all over his page. That is not the flag of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland it is flag on one of the constituents of the Union. The use of the flag is quite often associated with "British Nationalists" in the same way that the Eureka flag has been hijacked by similar elements in Australia. I am not saying HJM is some sort of right wing nationalist but admins should at least give a semblance of neutrality and remove such symbols from personal pages. Surely admin status is not to be used to push personal agendas. Silent Billy (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment It is also unfortunate that the indef block (and the emotive rhetoric by the blocking admin) immediately followed a comment by Sarah777 directed at the blocking admin where she states I would also strongly suggest that this Mitchell pov-warrior withdraw his "borderline racist" charge. "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland. Some might even say that an involved admin like HJ should not have made this block. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The message you link to is dated 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC), while HJ Mitchell's block took place at 23:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC). Kanguole 08:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support infinite block Wikipedia shouldn't be used for disruptive ultra-nationalist activism. Comments like '"British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland.'[94] tell us pretty much all we need to know about this user. Chester Markel (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef blocks by an involved admin, done in the heat of the moment, reflect badly on the admin and on the admin community that subsequently rallies around one of their own. Sarah777's behaviour was already being dealt with using common sense. An indef block immediately after Sarah comments on the blocking admin should be overturned. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  You have the chronology wrong: see above. Kanguole 08:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block. Sarah has been given multiple chances to stop battling and become a constructive editor, and she's squandered them. She has utterly exhausted the community's patience. —Angr (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777's edits to British Isles

• It turns out she's also been altering the contents of reference quotes in articles, even before she started flaming over flags in templates. Whatever happens on that score, this sort of disruption also needs to be addressed head on, or one day one of these attempted "corrections" of hers is going to go unnoticed, and that's concerning given how often some editors cite Wikipedia itself in these POV disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent and knowledge (awareness of whether that was in fact a reference quote, or having thought it was normal article text) is important. I have inquired on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the reference that Sarah777 altered. Her edit (removing "the Republic of Ireland") does misrepresent the source--Cailil ^talk 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So how does one deal with the use of references that might or might not add to the article's usefulness if they contain offensive content. I mean someone might include material from Der Stürmer in order to sneak in offensive material. Silent Billy (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow, how is that "offensive content" ? Mtking (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@GW. In terms of intent, I would look over the edits she made immediately after that one. And in terms of knowledge, I cannot come up with a single scenario as to how such an edit would make sense as a good faith edit if the intended target was plain text. She wasn't reacting to a prior change, she didn't mention a talk page outcome, she never added a new ref, and the only plain text nearby that she could have confused it with, if corrected in the manner she did, would mean it then did not agree with the reference she changed mistakenly instead. Even assuming she was just a mile away from where she wanted to be because she had merely used 'find', then it's pertinent that the phrase "and the Republic of Ireland" appears nowhere else in the article. And the 16 times where just "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned, the proposed correction either makes no sense, or in just one other case, would encounter the same issue as above. Sure, she can confirm it was a mistake now, but unless she can outline the realistic scenario that fits the above, I'm not buying it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick - I understand that you're frustrated here, but you are also involved. You need to let uninvolved admins review and Sarah speak for herself, please. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and count it as a mistake, a rather egregious one, but we don't indefinitely block for a mistake. Sarah's combative tone and nationalistic hyperbole are incompatible with her editing articles related even peripherally to the Troubles, but I feel there are avenues we should try before enacting a ban. A topic ban with the possibility of mentoring? --John (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even if Sarah was not aware it was a quote, and thought she was editing Wikipedia's own definition of "British Isles", this would still count as a bad-faith edit. Sarah knows, of course, that the term B.I., in common usage, includes Ireland. The edit she made was attempting to conform the article not to what she knew the world was actually like, but what she felt the world ought to be like. It was a deliberate falsification. This was POV vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, I want to point out that ever since I started some form of informal mediation related to the naming of the Republic of Ireland article and a number of pertinent pages ended up on my watchlist, I have been observing a pattern of English/British nationalists looking for every odd excuse to put references to "British" on articles that are specifically about the Republic. As England has 11.5 times the population of the Republic of Ireland and most neutral editors are sick and tired of these conflicts, the English/British nationalists generally win by their sheer number, even if their arguments are poor. Sometimes they even 'win' discussions in which most of their arguments are transparently deliberate provocations.

As a quick Google search for something like "use of flags for language choice" shows, using flags to indicate languages is not a generally accepted idea at all. This is problematic even for country pairs with no violent history, such as Germany and Austria. [95] The discussion at Template talk:British English followed the usual pattern in which justified Irish sensibilities are painted as eccentric, disruptive and against common sense. Both extreme sides are at fault, but the situation is unlikely to improve while we don't take serious measures to ensure that the concerns of the side that is numerically much weaker get adequate attention. Hans Adler 09:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that using flags is sometimes not very useful. However, in the present case it appears pretty clear that the "British English" tag was added to the talkpage as a mere routine maintenance thing, by an editor who had otherwise no involvement in related ideological conflict as far as I can see, without any ideological motiviation, and most likely – and understandably – without any thought at any possible hypersensitivities. It was factually correct, because the article is in fact written in that variety, just as it should be. And the flag had been on the tag since age immemorial [96], without any objections ever being raised. So, your initial description of the case, that "some WP:POINT violators insisted on putting the Union Jack on the talk pages of Ireland-related articles", seems not very apt to me. Call the use of the flag an unthinking bad old habit if you like, but if Sarah objected against it, she could have easily raised that point in a constructive manner and at the location where it belonged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to the tagging of the British Isles talk page. That just caused an overdue discussion to start. I was referring to the discussion at Template talk:British English, where removing the flag was opposed on the following grounds:

• The editor who proposed it was probably influenced by Sarah777, so the proposal was motivated by "hatred of anything British". (Second comment in the thread, immediately took it into an unconstructive direction. Notice how WizOfOz then parries Asarlaí to steer it back into a constructive direction.)
• Then Sarah777 joined the discussion and made a perfectly constructive proposal. (Double-tagging of articles such as British Isles so that an Irish flag appears there as well.)
• Sswonk goes to the trouble of creating and uploading a graphic that can serve as a substitute for the Union Jack.
• WizOfOz: "The flag should not be removed. This is clearly a politically motivated move arising from an apparent dislike of things British." And another attempt to make this personal: "Out of interest, Asarlaí, why do say people Ireland 'unfortunately' use British English?" This is in response to the concrete proposal by Sswonk, apparently in an attempt to quickly steer the discussion away before it gets any results.
• Sswonk steers back on topic.
• WizOfOz: "It's not a political symbol, it's a flag. It is clearly disliked by some people for no good reason and they are being allowed to introduce a political POV by having it removed. Whilst it's multinational the language is referred to as "British" English, and that's too bad if you're anti British. The flag isn't really the issue, it's the tip of the iceberg. Notice the attmept to have a Hiberno English template - that's really what it's all about, so it seems to me. An attmept to offload any mention of British and any related symbols."
• Then Mabuska comes in: "Some editors want to see any reference to British in regards to Ireland in any form removed." (Indeed. More to the point, some editors on leaving as many "British" odour marks on Ireland-related articles as possible.)
• Mabuska then admits: "The flag is inconsiderate in regards to Republic if Ireland related articles [...]."
• WizOfOz: "a number of editors involved here seem to be campaigning [...] agasint flags in general and it has been stated elsewhere [that this is] a smokescreen to get rid of the Ulster Banner and other British-related flags."
• and so on.

"At some point Mabuska proposed:It should be possible to code the template so that you can add an 'RoI' condition to it that would omit the the flag from RoI related articles wheere it is added to articles with an 'RoI' parameter declared." In this context see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 73#NPOV and navigation templates, which is about a related incident and shows extreme wikilawyering in order to get the term "British Isles" on the Republic of Ireland article. Maybe Mabuska wasn't aware of that, but this proposal was just a reminder of earlier attempts to humiliate Irish editors. Hans Adler 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you might think about that debate, Sara777's disruption rampage had begun prior to it, so I'm not sure in what sense it's relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your both right. Hans is correct there is extreme blatant WP:NOR and 'neutering' of sources going on on both sides. But this does not excuse Sarah's disruption (it's just bad for others who are involved in similar disruption). A lot of the stuff going on in this topic area is incompatible with wikipedia (look above by the remark by Silent Billy - "So how does one deal with the use of references that might [...] contain offensive content"). and everyone involved in altering sources to fit their POV has to stop or has to go. The crowd at WP:BISE got repeat lectures on this very issue at Christmas. Again I will point out the topic of British Isles is under probation specifically the addition/removal of it is sanctionable under WP:GS/BI--Cailil ^talk 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The probation is for specifically the tendentious and repeated addition/removal of British Isles without references or citations, which is already pretty much enshrined in the existing policies or WP in any case. I don't see how Sarah777's recent behaviour comes under that Arbcom ruling. On the other hand, I can see how the previous "Famine" Arbcom ruling is relevant. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the linked diff (at the head of this section) she removed the Republic of Ireland from a definition of the British Isles contrary to its inclusion in a source. Sarah made a number of different statements on that page some about the British Isles topic dispute (showng that her attitudes spilled over or crossed over to it). BTW the WP:GS/BI is a community probation not an ArbCom one--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, this bizarre edit of Sarah's, made at around the same time as her anti-Union-Jack polemics, has not been commented on yet. Should we regard it as a mere error or accident? If it was intentional, it really crossed the line into pure vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well certainly she marked a revert as a minor edit - which is bad on its own, but the content changes are well ... bizzare. The more I look at this the more it seems she kinda pressed the 'self-destruct button' all of a sudden in the last few days.
  If she wants to come back or those arguing for her want to encourage her to come back she is going to need to recognize all of this as incorrect behaviour and stay away from everything (discussions, xfds, aricles, talk pages, editors) to do with Britain, Britain and Ireland, Irish history, British history and the British Isles--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sarah777 is a rollbacker and this is a rollback edit summary, so of course it's marked minor. The question is why she clicked rollback in the first place. Recently there have been problems with this site so that depending on which scripts you have installed, you may get the entire page displayed, click on a link, and suddenly the page jumps up or down. At least in Firefox, if a link ends up in the location where you clicked before the jump, it will be activated instead of the link you wanted. In one case I rolled back an edit that I did not want to roll back. The developers know about the problem, but they are very reluctant about fixing it because they think they have solved a performance problem. More votes for the bug could help to get it addressed. Hans Adler 17:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry Hans you're right it is a rollback; and as you point out the question still is why she did it. Maybe it was a bug. It is a really bizarre edit.--Cailil ^talk 21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well GW, she unsurprisingly confirmed it was a mistake. There was no other plausible explanation as to how it made sense though, if editting the reference quote was not her intent. Her explanation was precisely too words - "my bad". The rest of that time she saved for flinging more arrows at HJM. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:British Isles

Not related to Sarah, but in the whole dispute area and in part sparked by this report. I've requested protection at RFPP but raising it here will probably be quicker - please can someone protect this template so that the claims that it conforms to NPOV by morphing it's state depending on what article it is on, on the flawed assumption that Irish articles are for Irish readers and vice versa, can be (re-)exmined, yet again. I don't know what more I'm supposed to do than what's already been done in terms of showing good faith over this - it's been discussed repeatedly on the talk page, and on the NPOVN noticeboard, and ultimately I even took the issue all the way to Jimbo to get it settled, who unsurprisingly confirmed that no, that's not how we do NPOV and never will be. And that was that, it remained stable in that state, until it was raised as a side issue in here by Hans. Now we have him, aided by User:Mo ainm (Infact, his first and only edit today thus far) who is a very prodigous meat puppet in this conflict area (and a CLEANSTART account with a long history of the same on his old name), continually reverting the template as having 'no consensus', while not hearing a peep out of either of them on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Says the editor who reverted 3 times in 2 hours. Also your continued attempts at outing me when the admin Alison warned you about is laughable.Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

She can come here and justify that position anytime she likes, it made no sense then, and it's sure as hell causing the site uneeded grief now. CLEANSTART is not, and never has been, a mechanism for whitewashing an account's prior history to leave the new identity free to engage in the same behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

She already did, so why should she come back again to placate you and your little crusade. Mo ainm~Talk 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? I know she said some things in the area, but let's be clear, you're saying she's been here before and said it would be perfectly fine for a user with a history of meat puppetry in the British Isles dispute area to vanish and reappear under a different account name, and resume that behaviour? Diffs or it never happened tbh. I'm sure you see the parallels with this current case - should Sarah ever be unblocked and then dutifully wait out her topic bans, can she also RESTART, and feel free to return to calling people WestBrits and such like? Really? Is that what you're actualy arguing for here? As something that would be helpful and healthy for the project? Or is the truth really as ever that your outing excuse is the thinnest of thin covers for what was infact a prior history laundry exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. "flawed assumption that Irish articles are for Irish readers". What MickMacNee has done was removing a feature of the template that enabled a nuanced approach to the term British Isles. It's the only natural term we have for the "North-Atlantic Archipelago" or "Britain, Ireland and the culturally and geographically close smaller islands", but it is slightly offensive in Ireland-specific contexts. The precise wording is a difficult NPOV question that requires nuanced, context-sensitive arguments, and it's not something that can be decided centrally by a one-size-fits-all template. When MickMacNee's POV lost on certain Ireland-related articles, he ran to the other parent and tried it with wikilawyering. In the context of the present discussion I was reminded that in the end he "won" simply by everybody else running out of steam.
This must all be seen in the wider context of nationalist British editors continually insisting on marking Ireland-related articles as "British" territory. Hans Adler 17:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia presents a consistent internal view and makes no assumption whatsoever about the percieved POV of readers of certain topics, is completely non-negotiable frankly. If I have to go to Jimbo before people will accept what is and is not a core principle, I will. That's not wikilawyering, it's called being at your wits end. I see no difference in doing that, than if I had to go and get him to clarify that no, it's not a good idea to use the Daily Mail as a source. You know full well what the perceptions are on that score from some people. Just because a few editors believe that something or other is good or even common practice on Wikipedia (while having no external examples), or that a vested minority want to push for it as it would clearly suit their POV while going against another, doesn't make it correct. I've gone far beyond what is reasonably expected in my efforts to convince you that this bodged up 'solution' on this template was not how we do NPOV. I've gone to great lengths to get outside views, I've even given you directly comparable examples from other disputes - do you see any template morphing going on over the issue of Gdansk? Or closer to home, Derry? No. Take your case to the wider commmunity, and then if you get agreement, you won't have to claim that there's 'no consensus' for any of these pretty Wikipedia-101 views. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are simply not getting it. I won't speculate why you are not getting it, but the fact is not an excuse for edit warring. One and the same word has different shades of meaning, and sometimes a completely different meaning, according to the context in which it is used. The word "British Isles" is still perfectly good in all international and British contexts. But it is not PC, and in fact offensive to some, when used in an Irish context. In such a context it is perfectly reasonable to replace it, and it is absolutely not OK to prevent this by wikilawyering once the decision to replace it has been made locally at an Ireland-related article. We had extensive discussions about that, and numerous sources were presented to prove that people are beginning to avoid this word and to look for alternatives. But once you have lost in one location you just run to the next one until everybody is too tired. That's not how it works. Forum shopping is simply not allowed, and forum shopping by wikilawyering to remove options from templates is the most despicable form. Hans Adler 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ok guys that's enough. This is not relevant to the case in hand. Hans I'm aware of the problem you're talking about but as an Irish person I can see that there is also a serious issue of 'Irish Nationalist' edits being made as well. All that matters on Wikipedia is WP:5 - any edit out of line with that whoever it's from is a problem. Either take this to dispute resoltion or try ArbCom. ANI is not for content disputes or battles--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange Blocks on Sarah777

I noticed this "article banned" and "indef-banned" being placed on Sarah on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine despite the fact that Sarah has not edited this article since 12 September 2009 or posted on its talk page since 3 June 2009. Why are these notices being placed on this page? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with specifically editing the Great Irish Famine article. It's just that that arbitration case placed Sarah777 under a special parole that allows administrators to enact these kinds of sanctions against her relating to any other page too ("may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks"). That's just what she was doing. Discussion of the whole case is further up on this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If "It has nothing to do with specifically editing the Great Irish Famine article" why is it being posted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in what has been quoted by Fut. Perf. that would extend the remedy to pages which have not been disrupted by Sarah. Bielle (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's customary that all sanctions done under the authority of a specific Arbcom decision are logged on that case page. It says it right above: "Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here". The bans are from just those pages that she did disrupt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just by way of a timeline Domer. GWH article banned her from Template:British English for one month. Serperately, Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Sarah for a week and indef topic banned her under the terms of the Famine ArbCom. Her conduct after that result in HJM's indef block. 3 seperate sanctions--Cailil ^talk 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I read it Cailil, and it is very clear "Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here." Now the "article banned" and "indef-banned" form no part of this Arbcom. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Here" in that line is "log the blocks here", not that interpretation. Furthermore, given that one sanction is "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans.", that's exactly the procedure followed. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It also notes that these Remedies were passed on 1 September 2007, that "the mentorship will continue for one year." Were did Sarah "engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks" surly not here or here. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Domer I'd suggest reconsidering your position - if you fail to see how these edits as incivil and incompatible with WP:5 that's your problem--Cailil ^talk 19:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(de-indent) Domer, you're conflating two remedies from the GIF case. First was the general mediation/review/mentorship of the Great Irish Famine article. That ended one year from the date it was passed. Then, we get to the finding specifically on Sarah: Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans.. Note, there is no time limit on this one, compared to the other request. Thus, it is indefinite and still in effect now. It states bluntly that she can be banned from any page she is engaging in agressive biased editing and/or anti-British remarks. It also provides a central place for these sanctions to be logged (the GIF ArbCom case Log of Blocks and Bans).

I've spoken with John, and while there is no way that I could be considered an uninvolved administrator (I once blocked Sarah indefinitely as in indefinite till she agrees to stop the disruptive behavior that she had engaged in at the time)), but if I may provide a suggestion.. her actions in this case (both pre and post block) do merit a fairly lengthy block.. if not a topic or site ban. I would suggest the following: Sarah777's indefinite block is converted into a 1-3 month block, and she is topic banned from all Ireland/British related articles until such time she agrees to mentorship with a mentor suitable to community approval. Once she begins the mentorship, all British Isles and Ireland edits must go through her mentor, who will have the ability to end the mentorship (and thus restore the topic ban on Sarah777) at any point). SirFozzie (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd support SirFozzie's suggestion. Although I'd feel more comfortable if she'd agree not make any derogatory remarks (or analogies) on wikipedia and/or a year long civility parole but wont make my support conditional of that--Cailil ^talk 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I could grudgingly support something a bit stronger than this. My first choice, quite frankly, is an indefin ite site ban with a review after six months by ArbCom or the community. If she is to be allowed to return in the foreseeable future (but I strongly oppose an immediate return under any circumstances), it needs to be made very clear what she can and can't do and what the consequences are if she fails to adhere to that. Among the list of things she can't do should be:

• adding or removing the words "British" or "Irish" from any article,
• editing any page (in any namespace) even remotely connected to the BI naming dispute,
• using the word "nationalist" anywhere on Wikipedia,
• making any comment whatsoever on the character of editors with whom she is or has been in dispute,
• adding, removing or commenting in any way on the Union Flag; the flags of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the flag of the Irish Republic anywhere on Wikpedia,
• Using "sic" or scare quote or any other punctuation intended to bait 'opponents'. There should be clear, predicatable consequences (such as lengthy blocks) for violations which get stiffer with each violation.

Before any of that, though, she needs to acknowledge that her behaviour has been extremely disruptive. I'm not trying to humiliate her, but if she can't (or won't) recognise that her behaviour was disruptive, then she can't possibly reform because she doesn't think she's done naything wrong. I will go on record as saying I think this is a waste of time, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, so those are the conditions under which, after at least a month, I would be willing to seriously consider an unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 may not have edited Great Irish Famine since 2009, but she's edited Legacy of the Great Irish Famine a lot more recently. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support SirFozzie's suggestion. --John (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• I must say that I do not think SirFozzie's proposal is a good idea, and is the kind of proposal that will only produce more drama and time wasting. It is merely deferring work from now to the future, which while tempting now of course is unfair to several-month-hence Wikipedians. A mentor is a waste of wiki-resources. Sarah is not a child. If she can't edit independently of a mentor, she shouldn't be editing; her contributions to hotspot issues are largely drama stirring anyway: no net gain even without the resource expense of a mentor. We must not promote the idea that somehow only some people are responsible for their own actions. On the other hand well defined restrictions can keep her from stirring up trouble and drama in hotspot topics while contributing productively in other areas with minimal time consumption in the admin and general Wikipedia community. If she can't obey the restrictions, then that would be it. Seriously, FuturePerfect had this sorted and everything since has just been a complete waste of time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe a mentor will solve anything. The Famine Arbcom ruling on anti-British remarks needs to be enforced (as they were). The remaining issue is a battleground and civility issue. Appropriate escalating blocks are available to deal with this, and we should start with a suitable block period and make clear what the escalations are. Ultimately, either Sarah777 will stay and edit, or decide to call it a day and give up. Same choice as any other editor. Why invent something complicated when something simple and already available will easily suffice? --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afriad I disagree with SirFozzie's proposal too. Mentorship is waste of time. Sarah has been editing here since mid-2006. She know the deal. She doesn't need a mentor. The sad reality is that Sarah has demonstrated herself time and time again to be incapable of keeping her cool on British- and Irish-related topics.

Sarah does good work on non-controversial topics and was very instrumental in building up WikiProject Ireland. She continues to do important work in rating articles. However, her bahavior can be utterly out of line. Topic bans are unfortunately necessary as she cannot be trusted to edit or contribute on sensitive issues.

Regardless of that, however, as HK says, the community needs to start re-imposing hefty and escalating blocks. If someone cannot abide by our basic pillars then they need to be shown the door. --RA (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like saying it, but I too think that mentoring Sarah will be a waste of time. She has had plenty of time and numerous second chances to prove that she can edit in a collegiate manner, but on every occasion she has proven she either cannot or will not. If we really must insist on giving yet another opportunity to prove she can be a positive (not just net positive) contributor to the encyclopaedia, and I'm not convinced her past behaviour warrant such an opportunity, then it should only be under the terms of the standard offer and a complete topic ban infractions of which result in immediate and escalating blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree with SirFozzie's proposal. It's been tried before (following another suggestion by SirFozzie (June 2008)) and worked as well as it did with User:Vintagekits - that is to say, not at all. Topic ban and escalating blocks is the way to go. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious from this long thread that Sarah has long been showing a pattern of problematic behavior. Otherwise, she wouldn't have all these blocks. If an editor has problems and makes a genuine effort to improve, that'll be apparent and we should work with the editor. However, if the same problematic behavior keeps being displayed by the same editor, in this case for years, it's time to give serious consideration to whether a project relying on collaboration with others is the right place for that person. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support SirFozzie's suggestion. No criticism of HJM's block but I agree with comments below that Sarah was using British to refer an institution. Within Britain though the term is both officially and widely used to indicate a race - not in the sense of a biological ethnicity, but to define a people who share a common national destiny and look back on a shared heritage. A heritage which despite its dark notes, was so much a net positive in world affairs, replete with such splendour and glory that thousands if not millions of non white people are proud to identify as British. And even with foreign nationals over 50 former members of the Empire choose to remain voluntarily associated with Commonwealth, headed by her Majesty the Queen. So editors should be cautious using the word British in outrageous insults. I also agree with Han Adler's analyses that Sarah seems to have been ganged up on. A substantial minority of Irish seem to share Sarahs anti British POV and they have good historical cause.- their POV and sensitivity should be reflected in Irish articles. So I hope the mentor will protect her from trolling when she tries to make our Irish articles NPOV, but on the other hand encourage Sarah to tread lightly if at all on British articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"A substantial minority of Irish seem to share Sarahs anti British POV" - I really doubt that. And a large part of my problem with Sarah777 is that she continually writes her anti-British invective as if she spoke for the majority of Irish people, let alone a "substantial minority". The most (only?) "anti-British" party got less than 10% of the vote in the last election. The fringe dissident republicans didn't run any candidates. A substantial minority of "British" people are of Irish descent, they're our biggest trading partner, and when Irish people go to watch soccer down the pub, it's the English premiership teams they support. (Proponents of "anti-British" positions may protest at "foreign games" being held in Croke Park, but they'll be wearing Celtic jerseys when doing so. Go figure). We don't want to be mistaken for English/British when we're on holidays, we'll delight at beating England on the sporting field, but ultimately the attitude of most Irish people to Britain is, I would say, indifference.

"when she tries to make our Irish articles NPOV" My last interaction with Sarah777's edits were on Legacy of the Great Irish Famine, where she had greatly inflated the support for the idea that the famine was genocidal. One source, a librarian, became "many historians", the NPOV heading "Suggestions of genocide" became the POV "Genocide" (seeing as the vast majority of historians, including all of the Irish ones in the article, disagree that it was genocide). So no, I really don't think she's been making our Irish articles more NPOV. Quite possibly the opposite. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (with Bastun). I'm afraid the idea that we in some way need to accommodate an extreme view of reality because a number of activist editors here in Wikipedia have that POV in REAL article text is a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. It's a common one, but it's still a misunderstanding. We are not here to reflect the POV of editors in articles. They are about balancing, reviewing, writing text on and contextualising SOURCED material of an ENCYCLOPEDIC nature. The long-running difficulty here is that the latter two points essentially come bottom to a determined group of editors - they see this essentially as a battleground between them and the evil Brit oppressors in which they game long term to "win the battle". In contrast, apart from some fairly nutty unionist editors from north of the border who get regularly blocked only to reappear a bit later in new guises, most mainland English editors don't care and are almost totally uninvolved, highlighting the deep nuttiness of the "national fight for Ireland on Wikipedia" battle they feel engaged in. When even slightly thwarted the nationalist editors from over the pond in some extreme cases (Sarah being a notably egregious and long-running prime example) throw their toys out of the pram and shout oppressed Irish in all directions, recruiting support from both gaming proxies and clueless followers. Well here we are - many years of this nonsense and still rolling. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of toy throwers from the "mainland" (where's that France?) also. The issue of Irish-nationalism on the 'pedia is really one of British-Irish nationalism (and "intra-British" nationalism) and of managaing contrasting (sourced) POVs on a whole raft of issues.

In doing that, the most damaging thing about the behavior of editors such as Sarah (and others) is that they atually undermine minority POVs. When I say "minority POVs" here, I mean with respect to the number of editors who represent those view in discussions about the NPOV in an article, not the weight that individual POVs should carry. In the case of managing British-Irish discussions, "Irish" POV on an issue is typically the minority POV (i.e. less editors) and the "British" POV is typically the majority POV (i.e. more editors). Regardless of the number of editors, however, both (sourced) POVs need to be integrated fairly into an article in order to achieve NPOV.

Behavior like Sarah's has a terrible spiralling effect by creating increasingly bad blood between editors of opposing POVs. It convinces majority editors that the minority view (regardless of sources) can only be the pervace of a few derranged hard nuts. Even in discussions where the likes of Sarah are not involved, experience of her kind ensure that majority editors are wary of POVs that sound like her. As a consequence, it becomes even harder to fairly integrate both (sourced) POVs into articles and attain NPOV.

Why this matters for us all is because the consequence is less NPOV and so it reduces the potential of the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, editors representiving minority POVs typically need to be much more civil in their behavior and come with many more sources under their arms to discussions. That's just a case of systemic bias and it is not an insurmountable task (and in fact, it is something that is required of all even if is not equally asked of everyone).

The likes of Sarah do nothing to help matters. They only hinder it. As someone who often represents the minority POV on British-Irish articles, I am glad that Sarah is gone. Her kind of editor only makes life harder for those of us who want to see minority POVs represented more fairly on British and Irish topics (and not alway where the minority POV is the "Irish" POV). --RA (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair to Sarah and others, part of the underlying problem and a major running sore and bone of contention (hope I've thrown enough metaphors at it - Ed.) is the tendancy to think that "votes" are a valid solution to long running content disputes, especially the totemic and serial ones like the naming usages of BI and Ireland, etc. This causes a "minority feeling" and a "clueless majority" and we need to keep pushing against this tendancy. We really can't "solve" this with either offerings to deeply held and doubtless sincere editor-POVs or simply giving in to the "majority" - which is of course not a real "majority", just a majority of people who can be bothered to involve themselves in that exercize. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)