Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive70

Harassment and wiki-stalking by malber

malber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previous blocked for making personal attacks on me including saying that autism is a "social construct to hide behaviour" and that people with it should "just accept the fact that she's a jerk", comparing me to some pig thing from star trek and so on

I'm posting this here because now he is going around trolling and wiki-stalking me - reverting any change I make, presumably because I pointed out his previous nastiness (I have quotes and diffs in a comment on my talk page for reference, near the top)

His first follow-on was to the template Template:User Aspie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where he placed the template on his page (he does not nor has claimed to have AS (form of autism) and said it's a "social construct for hiding bad behaviour") and then used that as an argument for provocatively hanging the template from it's design that many people were using and had been agreed with on the talk page to an ugly-looking bright purple and green one (he also tried to claim that the userbox and category should be deleted, given his clear bias against the group of people in general you can see why, really)

An admin caught this but now he is doing more of the same behaviour as you can see looking at his contributions. He has been following around reverting edits I make on purpose just to harass me.

some links:

• [1] (Eve Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - see history, as well as removing the site (simply because I added it) he also has been repeatedly adding an "offensive content warning" to the article (and maybe other articles too) - which having read around quite a bit about this there is definitely no consensus to do)
• [2] Rehabilitation Project Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have edited this article and most of the content he deleted was made by me. Given the edit regarding "skills" -> "people communication skills" I suspect this all might have something to do with me being a "known" against Scientologist or "Suppresive Person" as it looks like malber has some knowledge about Scientology and may be a member of the Church of Scientology - a possiblity, anyway)
• [3] (Racial steering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - again, just because I added the content he pops out of nowhere and reverts me)
• [4] (Strap It On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - again, follows me in a very short space of time onto an article he's never edited, obviously stalking me via looking at my contributions, and reverts me, this time claiming it's an "advertisement" (because its a link to an article about a video series))

I don't think anything can really be done at this point, I dunno, but it'd be nice if someone could at least watch him (I wouldn't be surprised if via his contributions-stalking he appears here and comments soon) as he's clearly just trying to troll against/harass me. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He also left a message replying to MSK on my talk page, here. - FrancisTyers 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just keep us posted here, and if it escalates, appropriate actions will be taken. Can you give diffs of when you've warned him about this stuff, and whether anyone else has too? Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like User:Antaeus Feldspar. Are they friends? 203.122.221.73 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't know Feldspar but he doesn't look that bad. Who are you? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

203.122.221.73 (talk · contribs) is the banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs), as shown here. Zordrac, of course, is really the banned Internodeuser (talk · contribs). He's dodging his ban again to make yet more personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Harro5: Yes I did a while after I saw your message here: [5] - he was warned about the vandalism of the Asperger syndrome template previously here: [6]

In his recent edits he has been doing nothing but trolling me, either reverting changes I make, deleting content or vandalizing: Just now he vandalized the clean fuels userbox (diff) (users the edit affects) to offensively try make a point.

ALL his recent edits have been to articles I've edited and he seems to be here for no other reason than to harass me: I think he might even be a sockpuppet of some other user wanting to harass me under a different name. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock FFF

He is a person I met at the VFW hospital, and I dont think his conduct should be blocked, he was only exersising his freedom of speech. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean you can silence him. Additionally, his sister is mentally retarded, I know that because I met her. FFF has diabetes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.74.74.202 (talk • contribs) .

Who are you talking about? I don't see a User:FFF here. --Deathphoenix 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Im talking about Fighter For Freedom Republican91 22:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

there is no article at Fighter For Freedom and I'm not seeing any deleted articles either? Checked Fighter for Freedom too. --W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Or a User:Fighter for Freedom or anything in the logs for them [7]. --W.marsh 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_me for more details on this. It's pretty much been decided. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, user:Fighterforfreedom, and by the way, you read too much Harry Potter

The top message was posted on my talkpage too, by Republican91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ; I'll reply here once and for all. The privilege of editing Wikipedia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a project to build an encyclopedia. Why don't you try going to the Encyclopedia Britannica and insist on your constitutional right to insert "flaming communist homo" and "fucking bitch truckstop whore" in it? Everybody is invited to edit here, but the invitation is withdrawn if somebody is a mere drain on the project. I'm sorry Fighterforfreedom feels bad, and I'm even sorrier his sister (who is apparently not too retarded to navigate this site, something many healthy adult new users find quite challenging) talks exactly like he does. Please don't post on my page under any name again, it will only be removed. If you continue spamming this noticeboard with your unreasonable complaints, now that the case has already been fully discussed here, they will be removed on sight, too. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

Consider this edit by Republican91, the most recent sock puppet of Fighter For Freedom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked all the sockpuppets of Fighterforfreedom including Republican91. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Roitr

Adding note I put on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, as I'll probably get something quicker if I come here:

• User:Roitr has used several IP addresses and other sockpuppets to vandalize and/or add incoherent, unverified, and senseless "facts" to the following articles: List of countries without an army [8], List of state leaders [9] [10], Comparative military ranks of World War II[11], Air force officer ranks [12], Naval officer ranks[13], Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel[14], Ranks of the People's Liberation Army, Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Navy, Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Air Force, Russian military ranks, Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, and the Military ranks of the Soviet Union.
  • Further note: there are several others aside from these, these are the ones vandalized directly by the "Roitr" account - God knows how many it will be if you count the sockpuppet accounts. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A (growing) list of his sockpuppets:
    • 81.218.179.146
    • 84.109.80.143
    • Tt1
    • 80.46.172
    • 81.218.115.169
    • 84.110.69.171,
    • 82.81.58.42
    • 81.218.175.147
  • Please block him, he is causing as much trouble as the the Communism vandal and/or Willy on Wheels. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But wait There's more! I want you all to know that he has been begged to stop, and in that case I will add no links, as one only has to go to his talk page to see that several users have stated that his edits are inaccurate and harmful to the encyclopedia. He refuses to listen, I beg those who don't confide in my report to look in the diffs. provided by the article links above. Note that these are a morsel of the things he has done here, and those aren't necessarily the worst. He also has used IP's to blank his talk page whenever vandalism reports are posted - I don;t know how right I am by this: but I will take the liberty of simply adding them back everytime, as we need a record of the nonsense he is responsible for. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I feel that I should say some more anyway: all the rank article vandalism to Russia and China seemed to be adding two gold bars under the US category, along with the rank order: Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, and First Lieutanant, neither of which exist, of course. He also came up with some rank on his own called Podpraporschik (which, as a vandal article, was deleted - that's why that is a red link and not a blue one). This user should have been dealt with a long time ago, and I am sick of this silly "He'll go away" attitude by adminstrators I have confronted. He hasn't went away: It is time to do something, NOW

I also hope I can trust somebody will add more evidence against Roitr/Tt1 - note that all the IP addresses start with "80" something and according to this tracking service they all come out of Israel. (Open proxies, by the way, are illegal on Wikipedia) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this attracted as much attention as Vanilla Ice's music career (that is, recently :) ). Seems like no one cares, but remember, I warned y'all about this guy. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Clint Cranford

Needs to be deleted under {{db-bio}}/{{db-band}}, but everytime I place the notice there it gets taken down (by the creators of the page). Google searches for names of people and albums mentioned in the article return few if any results.--216.165.33.63 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that it's a speedy, but I've listed it on AfD to give the community a chance to make a call on it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Whale.to breaches of WP rules unabated by admin criticism

See Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. Assume good faith, no ad-hominem, a single-minded appraoch to making WP into yet another copy of propoganda on a single subject, whereas the man presumably has some actually useful material somewhere. May he (probably called John Whale) be blocked please, for a while or forever, I don't think he'll learn but some work can get done. Midgley 13:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anomaly

What is wrong with the page Mackenzie Crook? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.142.245 (talk • contribs) .

• Can you be more specific? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Persistent disruption on Talk:Jack Abramoff

Please note, an anonymous user from IP 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been causing significant disruption and posting threats to the community in general at Talk:Jack Abramoff. This same user was perviously operating from IP 62.0.181.94 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and managed to earn a block there. I'm not sure of the individual's actions at the new address has risen to the level of warranting a block yet, but it must be getting close. --StuffOfInterest 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving messages like this on people's userpages is enough for a block in my book. I blocked this one for 48 hours, if they come back and do more of the same I'm happy to block them for longer. --Fastfission 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent IP for 48 hours. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all. When he pops up on his next IP I'll probably drop another note here. It appears he has a semi-static IP address as he keeps posting from one until it is blocked and then switches to a new one. --StuffOfInterest 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:85.250.217.240 for one week for posting a threatening message on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

He's back.. Now working from IP 62.0.142.114 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Obviously switching addresses to avoid blocks. Any appropriate action appreciated. --StuffOfInterest 00:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Pyro-tom

The account user:Pyro-tom is only used to include slander to the article Loughborough Endowed Schools, see my comment on the talk page. --Walter 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell

(Copied from WP:AN/3RR, because there were edits that amounted to vandalism, as well as excessive reverting)

He has reverted Template:User freedom seven times despite repeated calls to stop from multiple editors. The version he is reverting to is far different from what the creators and users intended it for. I consider these edits to be an act of vandalism.--God of War 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. [15]
• 2. [16]
• 3. [17]
• 4. [18]
• 5. [19]
• 6. [20]
• 7. [21]
• 8. [22]

• 05:38, January 22, 2006 Sean Black blocked "User:Gmaxwell" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Lots of reverts at Template:User freedom-needs to cool off) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that I have protected the template. The then-standing version was Gmaxwell's, on which I protected without endorsement. However, since Gmaxwell is blocked, some other admin may wish to revert to before the whole 22nd Jan silliness. -Splash^talk 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reverted to the version from before the vandalism, and added noinclude tags to fix it on userpages. Mark¹ 12:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking over this page, it appears that a 3 hours block is slightly on the short side for edit warring? Noting of course, that we usually unblock if the person agrees to quit the behavior anyway. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it is on the short side but you have to remember that blocks are not meant to be punitive. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you'll find that I am in fact the person who added that into the blocking policy. I do not see anything on either User talk:Gmaxwell or User talk:Sean Black that indicates that any discussion took place where Greg indicated that he would lay off. If we keep giving shorter blocks to cabal members (Tony Sidaway, Snowspinner, and now Gmaxwell) we should at least be honest and edit blocking policy to say "24 hours if for the little people". These are guys we should hold to a higher standard than normal. Giving them a slap on the wrist when they violate one of the siplest and most straight-forward policy we've got is very poor form. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm also surprised by the length of the block, because he was engaged in vandalism, not just edit warring. I'd block him myself but I was involved in a dispute with him over an image recently. Three examples of the edits I see as vandalism: he changed a box supporting the American military to one supporting the Iraqi insurgents. [23] He inserted an image of a woman "hogtied" and gagged into a box opposing fox hunting, and changed the fox hunting link to BDSM. [24] On Template:Wikiproject Terrorism, he replaced the image of a terrorist with one of a nuclear explosion. [25] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(start comments not pasted from 3rr)

• The last one I'd leave off the list as just bad taste. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 3RR or vandalism, although its fair to say it is disruptive. It is however incredibly notable that Wikipedia policy in no way implies freedom of speech, and that Jimbo has left us all a polite message exhorting us to keep our political views off the project, as keeping them on the project may cause it harm. Any of you who think good faith is an adequate reason not to block someone should take note.--Tznkai 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can chime in here- Greg was upset. He needed to calm down, and I thought he would be able to do so after 3 hours. I was evidently wrong (see the header below), but I did what I thought was best.--Sean|Black 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You did just fine. 3 hours stops the current problem and is probably long enough to give time to discuss the need to extend it. - Taxman ^Talk 15:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell and copyright notices

Alert to all admins. Gmaxwell is going around to every user page that displays any kind of thumbnail or flag from Wikipedia Commons and declaring them "copyright violation". He is then blanking the user page and putting up a copyright violation notice. Is there any justification for this? It seems to me there should be nothing wrong with displaying a picture on a user page so long as the picture itself is not a copyright violation. -Husnock 18:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Gmaxwell's blanking of User:Karol Langner, which did not even have any fair use images on it. I don't understand the rationale here.--Alhutch 19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall that there's an official policy somewheres (I think at WP:FU) that says fair-use images are not to be used in the user: namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the policy from WP:FU: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)."--Alhutch 19:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)
Yes, I inadvertently fell foul of that a while ago. On that occasion, though, the person who alerted me merely removed the image and left me a polite note in explanation. Gmaxwell has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively with regard to image violations (real or occasionally imagined). Here, he's misapplying a rule about fair-use images to the use of public-domain images, and doing so in a heavy-handed manner. Judging by the comments on his Talk page, he's heading for an RfC. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The heavy-handedness is totally unncecessary. I agree with Mel Etitis, all you have to do is be polite and notify people if they have done something wrong, not go around unilaterally blanking people's user pages.--Alhutch 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've spoken to him several times about his aggression, since a dispute I had with him recently about an image (in which he called me "hysterical" and accused me of vandalism because I dared to revert his removal of it). What with this today and his behavior last night (see above), I'm unsure of the best way is to proceed, but something needs to happen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

His behaviour is outrageous. Firstly, where fairuse images are wrongly on user pages it is invariably due to a misunderstanding, not an attempt to break the law. All he had to do was leave a message, not post a massive notice all but accusing the user of being a lawbreaker. Secondly, he is not removing the offending image, but all images, even those that can be displayed. Thirdly, blanking a user's page is grossly disrespectful to other users. Frankly, he is out of control at this stage. This bullying behavour of his has to stop. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused, the original poster (Husnock) says Gmaxwell is declaring user pages using Wikipedia Commons images copyvios, surely Husnock meant fair use images rather than Commons? The commons doesnt accept fair use images and Wikipedia Commons images can be used freely. Martin 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I move that all his edits be reverted and considered petty vandalism, and that the said user be blocked for a period of one week. We don't have time to entertain him or his dubious edits. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, his contribs list is beyond the pale. It's vandalism, pretty clearly. You just need to remove the image and leave a talk page message, and you don't need to blank others' userpages. It's behaviour I'd expect from an editor on a rampage, which, frankly, Gmaxwell is. Note in particular User:Carnildo/Unusual Files, which is merely a list of links to images, and contains no images at all. Evidently, Gmaxwell has blindly been applying his new policy without any thought. I've reverted all his edits (yes, with rollback), and yes, I know that exposes fair use images in userspace. Gmaxwell can jolly well go and remove them as appropriate by hand+talk page if he's that concerned about it. Further, he's been doing ridiculous things with userboxes very recently, and calling people assholes. He's now taking a 24 hour Wikibreak to reconsider his general behaviour. -Splash^talk 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this course of action, as Gmaxwell definitely needs to cool down.--Alhutch 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Splash, but I'd have given him 72 hours at least. :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Start out with short blocks to get the message across and to have the block be remedial (now he can't continue his various crusades for a little while) rather than punitive. Imo, anyway. -Splash^talk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The speed, systematic and indescriminate way this is being approached (Special:Contributions/Gmaxwell) really suggests to me that he is using at least a precompiled list, if not a bot, to do this. While it is in the interest of existing policy, the handling is clearly unnecessarily rough. Dragons flight 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is probably something like User:Gmaxwell/user fairuse. Do note the blind manner in which he has been carrying this out, as per the example in my previous post. -Splash^talk 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I note the fact that they all have identical edit summarries and content, are all marked as minor (the pywikipedia default) and are occurring at 30-60 second intervals (the pywikipedia default throttle). Also Gmaxwell is responsible for the Roomba bot. I am prepared to assert with near certainty that these edits were made by a pywikipedia bot. Dragons flight 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He blanked User:Karol Langner, which has an image which is not fair use, but rather public domain needing a tag update.--Alhutch 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey DF, long time no see! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of these edits seem a little odd. I see clear evidence of good faith efforts made by the blocking administrator and others to raise these edits with the user on his talk page, but no response.

In particular I thought the blanking of User:Carnildo/Unusual Files looked odd because at first sight it contained no inlines. However on investigating I discovered that it contained "Image" links with no preceding colon--it's possible that Greg is interpreting these as inlines, although in practise the ogg files in question are presented as links. I interpret this as a good faith error, or at least an alternative interpretation of a borderline case, by Gmaxwell.

On the blanking of the fair use pages, I think that's a very laudable objective, but the lack of interaction here is worrying. If one performs a lot of quite provocative edits--even if as here they're clearly reasonable and defensible, it's important to be responsive and available to discuss and defend them and to help repair damage caused by errors. Notices on talk pages explaining the issue and asking for the user in question to remove disputed fair use material would have been wise; I am looking but as yet see no evidence that this mass blanking was preceded by such efforts.

I want to stress again that I regard the objective here as laudable, and I'm certain that "fair use" claims on inline uses of image file on user pages will one pretty soon become a thing of the past on Wikipedia; the legal exposure to the site is too great to ignore for long. This was not the way to advance towards that objective, however. The block was necessary to stop the user continuing his ongoing actions without discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Majorityrule is going around doing the same thing now. 68.39.174.238 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked --pgk^(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be much more sensible to post a templated message on user's talk pages notifying them that they have fair use images on their user pages which they should remove? Arniep 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

it certainly would.--Alhutch 21:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just address the fellow in English instead of templatese? This might promote a dialog in which the user could be educated about the liability issue with respect to use of images to which there is no free licence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In the past when Greg has left notes he has been very confrontational, which causes the situation to flare up. In his case, using a template would be a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On the evidence, it seems that Majorityrule was a sockpuppet of Gmaxwell. I have extended Maxwell's block to one week. Given his behaviour, if they are an admin perhaps a move should be made to have them desysoped. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Look what I started! As to my own userpage, are flags a violation of these strange rules and regulations? Displaying a country or city flag on a user page should not be a problem, but some of the flag images come up as fair use. As far as the original user blanking all these pages, it is vandalism as far as I'm concerned. Not the right way to do it. Back to the flags, if there is a problem with displaying them on user pages then we have an even bigger problem since hundreds of user pages probbaly display a flag or two. -Husnock 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The flag image issues is explained in detail at User_talk:Husnock#Flag_images_question. Brief version: the flags were tagged as a PD template, which I moved in late 2005 to one that makes flag images fair use/maybe PD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this was a sock of Gmaxwell? How sure are you that an extension of the Gmaxwell block is justified? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

He isn't an admin and supeficially performing exactly the same set of edits does suggest a sock puppet (my initial reaction), though of course it's possible that it is someone up to mischief. --pgk^(talk) 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the original block is justified but the extension is not, I am going to reduce back to the original block time. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Маjоrіtуrulе (talk · contribs) (cyrillic letter substitutes) and Minorityrule (talk · contribs) were recently created and blocked before editting on the presumption of being additional sockpuppets. Dragons flight 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser says: These appear not to be Gmaxwell at all, but a troll stirring up shit. They also created FіrеFох (talk · contribs) and Vаndаlbоt (talk · contribs) (both Cyrillic substitutions) and previously used Wikipedia is not evil. (talk · contribs) - all impersonation or near enough. Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg, however. This appears to be Greg wanting to go out with a bang because he's sick of Wikipedia. Argh. - David Gerard 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that proves me right then in my choice to reduce the block back to original length. It's also a very bad idea to block for sockpuppetry without checking into whether they're actual sockpuppets or not. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not enitrely sure it does, reread "Majorityrule (talk · contribs) is Greg", that's the one which caused the block extension. --pgk^(talk) 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That proves that Gmaxwell did engage in sockpuppetry which means it was right to extend the block.--Alhutch 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg obviously wants an indefinite block and I'm in favor of denying it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, blocks on Greg have very high collateral damage. Specifically, they block Mindspillage. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a big worry. If Mindspillage needs the editing priveleges returned every time Gmaxwell decides to be a jerk, she can always unblock the autoblocked IP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Something positive

There's a lot of angry guys around, and talk of an RfC on Greg's talk page. I'm afraid to look at the RfC page, because I might see that it already exists, but surely that's the last thing that this situation calls for? There are a two possibilities: This user intends to return, or is trying to "go out with a bang".

If it's the second, we should save ourselves the time and energy of a pointless and almost certainly damaging RfC where lots of people would probably say regrettable things. If it's the first and they've just gone nuts, surely something more along the lines of an intervention would be a better way to return him to the fold? Has anyone been able to just chat to him?

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that talk of an RfC has been overtaken by events. He obviously wanted out and required some assistance in making the break. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent discussion on his talk page suggests that he doesn't want to leave after all. -- grm_wnr Esc 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with brenneman's conclusions. Although I think Greg was very much out of line here, there's been enough of a pile-on regarding that. Greg should be given time to cool off, and any blocks (if they prove to be necessary) should be preventive, not punitive. Let's give him time to cool off. I don't think he's recovered from the Roomba image problem of last month, which appeared to upset him considerably. Johnleemk | Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent statements on User:Gmaxwell's talk page

All that being said, I'm still concerned about the edits he's making to his user page. If any other user said words to the effect of "you want to see damage to the encyclopedia, I can show you damage," we wouldnt be holding back. I ask again, is there anyone who's had a (real-time) chat with him? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg still has his tool server account, he's still a talented developer with a fairly good knowledge about how the site works, and he states quite honestly that if he truly had evil intent he could do a lot more damage than a few silly page blankings. I don't think there's serious cause for concern in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't, under normal circumstances, care if a person can actually follow through on their threats to "DESTORY WIKIP{EDIA!1!!", we care about the mindset behind those threats. My concern is for the future of an editor who had apparently made large contributions, when he'll regain his composure, and how much damage he's doing to himself as a Wikipedian in the meantime. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of malice here. He sounds bitter and disillusioned but really that is very well founded. As he sees it, some Wikipedia editors are jeopardising Wikipedia for reasons of selfishness and ignorance and his reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation have been rebutted by people whose support he expected. Some of us are very buoyant and thickskinned, and that kind of nonsense is like so much water off a duck's back, while some of us are easily hurt and may sometimes overreact. Greg is of the latter persuaion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. He's not known for making "reasonable, patient attempts to protect the Foundation," unfortunately, but for acts of aggression that have led other users to leave the project. I'm concerned that, in his most recent statements, he has announced his intention to continue being disruptive, and has said he'll evade any blocks that are applied. That's a direct threat to the project, not an attempt to protect it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the block on Gmaxwell ought to be extended so that he has a chance to reflect on whether he's able to edit within our policies. His behavior is frequently disruptive; this is far from being the first example of it. After being blocked yesterday for three hours for what was arguably vandalism, then for 24 hours for mass blanking of user pages and unapproved use of a bot, he carried on blanking pages using a sock puppet, User:Majorityrule, which check user confirmed was him. He frequently makes mistakes (e.g. wanting to delete supposedly orphaned images that are in fact being used in articles) leading to lots of time-consuming arguments during which he is very rude, with users having to undo his work, and people even leaving the project because of him. He also deletes posts from his talk page so that it's hard to keep track of all the disputes he's causing (says he's archiving, but then doesn't). [26]

Today he seemed to indicate he has no intention of following our policies:

• "Like I give a crap about being blocked, it doesn't even inhibit me from editing." [27]
• "Man. You think I've stopped because I'm blocked? Please! Blocking doesn't actually stop anyone but twits!" [28]
• "You're still wrong about me being blocked accomplishing *anything*, since I can still edit whenever I please... in fact, being blocked gives me far less incentive to be nice about it, in so far as there can be far less than nearly none at all." [29]
• "I feel great because I can still do what I want, and I don't have to worry what rude jerks think about me ... I can continue to do whatever I think is right without the burden of explaining myself to a shreaking [sic] mass of people." [30]

That's not even to mention the personal attacks. Users are frequently blocked for long periods for less than this. I think we need to show some consistency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! After this latest episode everyone should know now that claiming "fair use" for copyrighted images on one's userpage is against Foundation policy and increases the legal exposure of the project. So block everyone who restored their pictures or won't take them down. Pilatus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Those comments are very troubling. Anyone else making them would likely be facing a substantial block for that alone. There's only so much goodwill the community affords each of us, and GMaxwell was using up his prodigiously prior to making these comments. I'm concerned about someone making comments like that and still having access to the tool server. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately if we block Gmaxwell, a side-effect is that Mindspillage is also prevented from contributing. What do people suggest? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. We can do a user-account block without blocking the IP address (block the account, then unblock the IP). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

kinda. You could block the account but not the internet, but then he might just come back as a sockpuppet so yeah (although there's a possiblity that he might not do that also arguably you'd be better off knowing who is actually him) =| --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's... awkward. android79 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments by Gmaxwell show disrespect to the project and its participants ("rude jerks"). Gmaxwell's actions appear to have been disruptive and rude. This is seriously inappropriate behavior, and deserves a strong response from the community. -Will Beback 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the strong reek of double standards emanating from some contributors here, it's odd that anyone should hesitate at the notion that Gmaxwell be blocked for any other than practical reasons, given the pile of evidence against him. Those reasons are also fairly minor, though, surely; just about anyone could edit through sockpuppets, and some do — our response isn't to agonise over whether blocking is a good idea, but to block the sockpuppets as and when they appear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mel. Moreover, many WP policies are intended to protect the project from disruption. Editors feel insecure and unsure how to respond to problems when these policies aren't followed evenly (never mind they aren't, and would go far in stabilizing things around here if they were). Wyss 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If I could make a comment here -- It seems to me that Gmaxwell's head has gotten extremely big. It's extremely frustrating to see him make so many rude comments and vandalous edits without reproach. "Double standard" is exactly what comes to mind. Anyone else who would've acted as he has would've been dealt with much more vigorously. As an administrator-hopeful, I find it absolutely disgraceful that someone such as Gmaxwell has been permitted to continue on as he has. Wikipedians agree to edit by consensus, and with his recent actions, he seems to think he is above policy. ~MDD4696 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that some recent contributors to this discussion will reconsider their harsh, intemperate and accusatory words in the wake of this incident. This user has currently been unblocked for over thirty hours and has engaged in no further problematic behavior. I find it incredible that editors are seriously suggesting that "more vigorous" action would have been taken against other editors engaging in the blanking of pages containing unlicensed images. It simply isn't true of me, and I find it hard to imagine that Jimbo Wales would regard this as problematic behavior--upsetting though it may be for the copyright infringer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that isn't the point. The point is that some (or many) or the users who are using these images have no idea what they're doing wrong, or may have some rationale for the image's status as something other than fair use. The issues here are someone being overly aggressive and unnecessarily rude.--Sean|Black 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh up to a point, I agree with you. But let's not pussyfoot, here. All of the images in question are clearly marked as unlicensed, nobody has any business using them anywhere on Wikipedia without a very, very good reason. We should be taking this a lot more seriously, and believing that you have a good excuse to put an unlicensed picture on your userpage is not a good excuse to risk jeopardising the Foundation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What's pussyfoot? Like the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? El_C 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But you don't have to be a dick about it, is all.--Sean Black 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You're actually right for a change Tony - oh and ignore Sean Black, we all know that this is personal for him due to his close friendship with SlimVirgin and previous protectiveness of SlimVirgin's blatant disrespect of the rules about using fair use images on user pages - If people won't remove fair use images themselves someone else does need to do it.

However I don't agree with his blanking of user pages, he should have simply remove the fair use images from them and left a talk page message. While Kelly Martin is against him, there are some very large parallels in his behaviour of destructively deleting things just because they have fair use images in them than constructively just simply removing them or replacing them with a free use/GFDL/public domain image. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible response to User:Gmaxwell

Greg is obviously hurt and angry, and blocking him further now will deepen any feelings he has that Wikipedia has "turned against him", despite it looking like that's what he wants. I'm more worried about getting him to continue doing positive things in the future than I am about stopping him doing negative things right now.

But something needs to be "seen to be done", or alienate people who are not in the cabal. This is the third example of high-profile violations getting a short block in the last few weeks. Last time, I looked over the previous 5000 or so blocks and only found four 3RR blocks of less than 24 hours, for example. Do we expect that we'll have happy Morlocks slaving away forever with this inequity?

A possible (non-punative) measure is having ArbCom issue an injunction stating that Greg is on 0 revert, 0 attack, 0 bot (?) parole, etc etc, with a statement that he's welcome to continue contributing in a positive manner but that damage to Wikipedia won't be allowed. Sadly, this should be paired with an indefinite block of the IP until he promises not to blow shit up, as is standard. If his promise is by IRC, e-mail, or voice, a statement that it has been received should be placed somewhere public. No need for an apology or any of that nonsense, but a clear message that blocks will be applied, and an injunction means that no one has to hesitate to perform them.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block of Greg's IP would also be an indefinite block of an Arbitrator just elected to a three year term. Are you quite certain this would be a good idea? Kelly Martin (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It should not be difficult to help Mindspillage find a proxy that he can use for editing. True, Gmaxwell might be able to take advantage of that too, but that doesn't mean we should be paralyzed with fear. Nandesuka 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, the block of the IP can be undone, leaving only the block of the user account. A block of Gmaxwell will not affect Mindspillage. 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)SlimVirgin ^(talk)

There's no need to block the IP. Any sockpuppet causing trouble of the kind Greg has caused will be recognized pretty quickly and blocked. It's the Gmaxwell account that needs to be blocked for longer than 24 hours. I wouldn't say indefinitely, but I think the week-long block ought to be restored, to give him a chance to consider whether he wants to be part of the project, with all the frustrations that necessarily entails, and which he currently seems unable to handle. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm operating on the assumption that we'd treat this independant of whom it is that's acting up. I find it hard to credit that if a static IP has run a destructive bot from a username and again from a sockpuppet that we'd think for more than five seconds before we'd block the address until that person foreswore more bad behavior.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Wik. He was hardbanned for the same kind of thing. I appreciate Greg's concerns about copyright but I'm not sure that the right response to not getting your own way on day one is to start vandalising the place on day two. As he's noted on his talkpage, he's technically adept enough that banning him would not be sufficient to prevent him from carrying out further vandalism but it sure would give him a message.

I think you have to separate the user -- bad -- from the agenda -- good -- and give him the message: you're banned until you turn the dial down and try to achieve your goals a bit more patiently. Grace Note 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything more than we can or should do at present. Greg has developer rights on the toolserver, and his investment in the project as a whole is not in doubt. I think we should just wait for him to cool down as very little damage has been done except for hurt feelings.

And honestly if anybody brings up "morlocks" and "little people" again I shall vomit. Greg is precisely that, not an administrator or an arbitrator, and by his hard work and talent he has made himself a great asset to the project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You read my mind! You know damned well that if someone you didn't like was doing this, you'd be leading the charge, Tony. It has nothing to do with "investment in the project". Lir made many good edits. So did Wik. Grace Note 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To be frank: While Greg is indeed neither an adminstrator nor an arbitrator, one needs only to scroll up a bit to discussions of "collateral damage" to see that he is politburo at the least. If we continue to give senior contributors free ride to wheel war, vandalise, run bad bots, and generally do whatever the hell they want, let's not be suprised that the peasants are revolting. I suppose we could just quote the ArbCom and tell them to fork off, but good luck maintaining 934,826 atricles without them.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tone it down? "Wheel war", "run bad bots", "vandalise", "peasant" and did I see somewhere in there a reference to the Cabal and the politburo? Aaron, you yourself must know from your own treatment that respected contributors (whether I regard them as personal friends or not--there is no issue with that) tend to attract more good faith and that the evaluation of a situation is not so blindly evenhanded as to, for instance, block a respected contributor who makes a gross misjudgement but does not seem to present an active risk. I think there is underlying this a suggestion of double standards, which I steadfastly refute. I do regularly (check my block log) reset and remove blocks where good faith can be inferred from email conversations, talk pages, or from reading this forum, and I have no doubt that this is a normal and regular operation carried out by all other conscientious administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As much respect as I have for Greg, I have to agree with Brenneman. We can't tolerate this shit. It's one thing to gawk at punitive blocking. It's another to gawk at preventive blocking to prevent further crap from occurring. The practical problem, of course, is how to get Mindspillage to edit. Presumably she will have to use a proxy, or we'll have to disable the autoblocker for Greg's account, as the autoblocker will automatically block any IPs he has been using. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

John, he is a technically adept user. He can easily circumvent any block. So it's pointless seeing a block as a way of actually preventing him from editing. But if his ID is blocked and his IP left untouched, he is given a message. Or we could just all purse our lips some more and tell ourselves how much we "respect" a user who respects other users by blanking their userpages rather than talk to them. Grace Note 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting at? I've already said I want him blocked as long as he continues to damage the encyclopedia. You're talking to the wrong person here. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifics of this case aside, getting Mindspillage to edit is a total non-issue, since she's an admin and can easily unblock her IP herself as per the "collateral damage" rule. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And who pretends to be an admin, threatening to block people who disagree with him, [31] regularly makes personal attacks, tells people they're using Wikipedia as free webhosting because they don't want their user pages to be edited by others (nothing to do with images, mind you), [32] and asks good editors to stop editing outside the main namespace because he doesn't like the way they voted in an RfA. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] The people defending him have to realize that they've weakened their own positions regarding the next time they call for a troublemaker to be blocked. If they're prepared to take that on board, good luck to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he asked people to stop editing outside the main namespace. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sjakkalle. Fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's been doing that, you need to take it to dispute resolution. WP:AN/I is mainly for assessing urgent problems that may require administrator action. There doesn't seem to be any cause for that here, so far. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Tony, those defending him will have to be consistent, so if you're willing never to put a query on this page about a non-urgent issue, never to block someone for doing less than Gmaxwell did, and to seek dispute resolution from now on when dealing with disruptive editors, instead of blocking, there'll be no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be as inappropriate for me to defend Greg here as it is for you to use it as a forum to attack him. This is for assessment of risk in potentially urgent incidents. Please take your complaints against Greg Maxwell to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been larely away from Wp for a couple of days and have just read Maxwell's page. Frankly his comments are outrageous. Freom threats to bypass blocks to verbal bullying his comments there are outrageous and would not be tolerated from a newbie. Then there's this. He seems to be out of control. (BTW so is this page. Every time I hit the edit box I'd find myself in the wrong part of the page. I had to type this by opening the entire page. The text then appeared letter by letter with each letter taking 4 seconds to appear. It took 7 minutes of typing, waiting and correcting to add this paragraph in. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Post-Block

I think Aaron's comment of him being "hurt and upset" is still there after the block, but at least he seems less aggressive now(to an extent)[41] .Just figured i'd give a heads up. Karmafist 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion of this user is that he is a very dangerous individual whose edits speak for themselves. Full of sarcasm, threats, rude insults, impersonations of an admin, not to mention massive disprect of other users and blanking of user pages. I'm all about forgiving, but this is banable behavior. If further incidents occur, a ban would be warranted. -Husnock 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which admin did he impersonate? kmccoy (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He acted as though he himself had administrator status, I believe. ~MDD4696 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So? Admins aren't police officers. If "impersonating an admin" was an offense, then we should start banning all those evil non-admin users who post {{test4}} onto user_talk pages. kmccoy (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone with tact needed

User:Mike Nobody/II needs to have the fair use images removed. Needs delicate handerling. User appears to be a little anoyed about haveing to remove fair use images from his userspace.Geni 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Where's Gmaxwell when we need him? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has volunteered for this kind of thing? Jkelly 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Me. Problem is that I delt with the last lot of copyvio stuff so he is slightly anoyed at me.Geni 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just left another message at User talk:Mike Nobody. Jkelly 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the issue has been resolved. Jkelly 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

About removing warnings

User:Sebastiankessel said that removing warnings from one's talkpage is considered vandalism. He told me to check WP:Vandalism, and so I did, but I'm having a problem finding the info where it says that one is not allowed to remove a warning on his own talkpage. What is says is "Removing vandalism warnings from one's talk page is also considered vandalism", but I was not warned for vandalism. Can someone help me out? Can I remove a warning that doesn't pertain to vandalism? --Candide, or Optimism 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Anittas is right. I interpreted the message left as a warning and reacted accordingly. I'd like somebody to correct me if I was wrong in the way I read the page. Thanks.

My apologies in advance to Anittas if I misinterpreted the policy. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. --Candide, or Optimism 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, though I concede that that is the wording of the policy, the intent is actually slightly different. The intent of that comment is to avoid anonymous vandals removing warnings. I think it's permissible to allow a wide latitude in behaviour here. Nevertheless, Anittas does correctly state what the policy page says. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A loophole in one policy is not carte blanche to violate another. When removing warnings Anittas misused the edit summary to make personal attacks and discount genuine warnings as mere harassment [42], [43]. FeloniousMonk 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not misuse the edit summary because it's my talkpage and I should feel free to remove any comments that I want. Your policy say that a user is not allowed to remove warnings about vandalism. I disagree with that one also, but it has nothing to do with my case. Where did I make personal attacks when I reverted back? I want you to back up this claim of yours. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As has been said many times, policy is what we do, and the written version of it always lags behind. The page should be updated to reflect what is actually meant (which Sam Korn stated quite concisely, so I won't bother repeating). Having not read through the events of this situation, I can't speak to the issues FeloniousMonk has raised, but certainly WP:VAND needs to be updated. I'll go and do that now. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin change, update, or reform a policy? I thought that the entire community decided on these things, with a reserve from Jimbo who can at any time dismiss any changes. Also, it doesn't matter if you change that particular policy because that particular policy - that is, the Vandalism policy - doesn't apply to me. I have nothing to do with vandalism. --Candide, or Optimism 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages only document policy; they aren't policy in themselves. Where what happens is obvious, it is not unreasonable to update the policy page to reflect this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The policy pages reflect the official policy if Wiki, right? Then, I'm thinking that one user can't just decide that the policy is to be changed or even reworded without authority from the community, or whoever. --Candide, or Optimism 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question, as far as I can tell, is no. The policy pages do not reflect the official policy of the Wiki; they reflect, for reference, in a slightly out-of-date way, what we actually do. -- SCZenz 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. There are one or two "official" policies, which must be obeyed: NPOV, Copyrights, Civility. Other than that, written policies are more like guidelines that should almost always be followed. The primary policy, though, has always been "use common sense", and updating policies to fit in with sensible practice makes good sense. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you then enforce things that are not a part of the policy? Say that I was a vandal and I would remove warnings about my vandalism on my talkpage. Why would I then risk to be blocked for removing the warning? In fact, how can you define that as vandalism at all? You said above that the wording was wrong and that it would apply to anonymous users that would make the revert. Obviosuly, these admins wouldn't interpret it this way. You guys aren't even on the same page. It seems that there are no requirements on who can add new rules to the policy, as we have seen here. Some dude thought it was good to update the so-called policy and so he did, without anyone objecting it. It makes no sense. Who is shaping this policy? Who decides these things? --Candide, or Optimism 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I told you on wikien-l, Wikipedia is not a game of rules. It is a project with a purpose. You seem to be confused about this, given your constant attempts to find a way around the wording of policy. You see, the wording of policy isn't what gets enforced, in actual fact. It's the spirit. Granted, we sometimes disagree on the spirit, and that's to be expected. But there is no way to get away with things on technicalities here, so please do yourself a favor and understand that. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I've restored Essjay's wording, because it's obviously sensible. This being a minor and blatantly obvious fix to the policy, this is the appropriate way to build a consensus--it's a wiki, remember? -- SCZenz 23:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious...why, if civility is a policy instead of a simple guideline (like WP:NOR, WP:EDSUM, etc.), are we not permitted to block unrepentant violators? Tomer^talk 15:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Too subjective - David Gerard 12:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Yuber

I see Tznkai has banned Yuber (talk · contribs) from editing Islamic extremist terrorism for disruptive editing in violation of the arbcom ruling against him. I don't know the details, but I see Queeran (talk · contribs) is somehow involved, and it might be relevant to know that there's a suspicion Queeran is banned user Enviroknot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's been after Yuber for months. I've advised Yuber to request a user check. If Queeran is directly involved in Yuber being banned from editing this article, I wonder if Tznkai might reconsider? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)if Queeran is Enviroknot, I'll just ban him too. Its a one week suspension from an article, not punative, but prevnative so he'll cool down. Yuber seems to have taken it pretty well. Where the hell is that template by the way?--Tznkai 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was never able to find a template, so I just wrote it up myself when I last did it. [44] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with a ban since I wish to remove myself from this dispute for a while. Yuber^(talk) 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For those of you concerned the applicable remedy is qualified as "Disprutive edits" and repeated reverting is by its nature, disruptive. I am planning on lifting this ban in one week barring objection, and willing to lift it earlier if any three adminstrators ask me too.--Tznkai 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely protest this outrageous accusation by the admin Slimvirgin, and note that she is entirely too protective of Yuber. Queeran (strikeout added by Tznkai. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Take it outside.--Tznkai 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, if you're going to strike out another user's comment, you must clearly denote this. El_C 12:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tznkai, as Yuber doesn't seem to mind, I see no problem, though someone should request a check user tomorrow to see whether Queeran is editing from Houston, Texas, or using open proxies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need. I can tell you right now, yes, I live in Houston. It's no crime. I don't use open proxies. As for the rest, I suppose I really shouldn't care, your behavior in this has proven to me that there's absolutely no point bothering with Wikipedia. Queeran

Oh, if only I could believe that - David Gerard 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not ban Yuber indefinitely? He's clearly a trouble maker. Zordrac 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina

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

Having tried to AGF for quite some time, I feel this is no longer warranted and I've blocked Mistress Selina indefinitely. Her recent actions, especially this edit and the subsequent discussion on her talk page, look too much like the work of a troll. I don't think this can be explained away as a case of ignorance, or being new around here. In fact, after some consideration I don't see that there can be any explanation that would convince me that the linked edit above was made in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a blockable offence? Maybe. Indefinetely? No. But for me, it is the case of straws and camels backs. Somoen pushes it, and pushes it and eventually we either stop AGF - or we become dolts. Perhaps reduce this to three months, but I'm minded to let the block stand as is. --Doc ^ask? 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because the best way is to just block people so the POV pushers they oppose can get away with bullshit.

Wikiadmins are fucking cowards, this is just more abuse of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.120.29 (talk • contribs) 14:25, January 27, 2006

I'm not a sock, but I agree to 99-percent on the statement made above. You guys are cowards. You come here just to block people and play your role-playing game by hiding behind the Wiki policy. Go and work on articles, instead. If someone thinks that Wiki is a fascist site, then let them. What the hell do you block them for? In fact, I happen to agree with that statement to 50-percent. So what? Shouldn't I have the right to think that Wiki is a fascist site and say it? --Candide, or Optimism 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You may think whatever you want of Wikipedia. But when you write on a proeminent page explaining what Wikipdia is about that Wikipedia is fascism, I don't see how to distinguish that from vandalism. And yeah, if that were the only instance, that would not warrant a block. However, look at her blocklog. She's been a nuisance ever since she is around. Such an editor makes life hard for people around, and must go. With the current state of affairs, it requires an exhausting and long arbitration process to get somebody out. This case is obvious enough to bypass that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. There's no policy that dictates free speech, and if you feel so negatively toward the project, perhaps you should leave. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not discuss politics and critisism towards fellow editors. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. -Zero^Talk 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IP blocked as probably sock and certainly abusive. --Doc ^ask? 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Did it really have to take this long? WP:AGF is a great policy, but it's not a suicide pact. --malber 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Malber. She literally hasn't gone a week without being blocked for something. We've tolerated her for too long. Raul654 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! However, Selina will come back with another username, I believe this is not her first username, nor the last. And the story will start again..... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat inclined to reduce this block. Despite being blocked and unblocked many times, she has never actually had a block stand for more than 30 hours. I'm uncomfortable jumping straight from 24 hours for childish behavior to an indefinite block with nothing in between. Sit her down for a month or two, perhaps, but I'd still offer her another chance. Dragons flight 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers. It's about time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so anti-Jewish, already! !תצאי בחוץ El_C 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, old habits die hard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, my cabal calendar says it's Slim's week to be the anti-Palestinian, and Tomer's week to be anti-Jewish. C'mon guys, stick to the schedual! - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And who gave you a cabal calendar?--Doc ^ask? 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, that was me. Wasn't thinking :). And good job, Mark. I hope it sticks this time (*cough, cough*).--Sean Black 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"bonk the trolls on the head before they get too socially involved with the site" (source)
--JWSchmidt 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm tired of her. I want to say something about process, and ArbCom, etc, but hell with it. She's a pain and the project is best without her.--Tznkai 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck process. Block timewasting trolls. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Careful what you ask for Tony. You might see the administrative staff halved. Honestly, what can possibly justify such an excessive and pointless ban? MSK, as noted above, has been blocked, but never has a block stood for much more than a day. Indefban is totally out of line considering the fact that MSK is apparently acting in good faith, and doing her best to help wikipedia. I suggest that this block be removed - and that those of you jumping on the chance to hang MSK out to dry try some serious self-reflection. --Dschor 07:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is perfectly good, and nobody is perfectly bad either. However, Selina has been too much trouble for whatever gain she has been bringing to the project. I believe the block must stay.

But Tony's wording was poor indeed. Following process is the only sane way most of the time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some users may be of the opinion that Selina has been more trouble than she is worth, but it is clear that she has become an easy target, and that admins are taking the opportunity to silence one of their more effective critics. Her edits in this instance were hardly worthy of a warning, and certainly not of the caliber demanded for an indefban to be placed on her account. Tony's "Fuck process" comment is an indicator of the level of discourse at which the administrative staff has chosen to engage MSK. Abusive blocks simply exacerbate the problem. Why give her more to complain about? What damage has she done to override WP:AGF? --Dschor 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Her edit was trollish and totally unacceptable. What's worse is the spray she gave when warned for it. And it's not as if her behaviour has been isolated – she's been a continual nuisance. This block is clearly warranted.--cj | talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone see the irony? Post in good humor that wikipedia may be turning fascist... and then get proved correct as admins swoop in to block with no regard for proportion. I could see 24 hours as the max for such an edit. Indefban? You must be kidding me. The block is more trollish than the edit was. --Dschor 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to be taking an exceptionally narrow view of the reasons for this block. It wasn't solely her edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that justified the indefinate block, but her manner before and after it. It was, as they say, the final straw.--cj | talk 10:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

She has indeed been a nuisance from the start. Here's a wikified version of three posts I made on Wikipedia Review a couple of weeks ago, describing her history up to that date.

• User:Tony Sidaway/Blocks on Mistress Selina Kyle

She has been blocked several times since then, mainly for disruption and vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The user seems to be in a permanent state of war with the wiki. I support the indefinite block here. -- SCZenz 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. An indefinite block is suitible; Any user going without not being blocked every week is..troublesome. Users have asked her about her methods of speech and actions numerous of times, and she continued to take advantage of such interaction. Hmm, guess she'll never learn. -Zero^Talk 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

She seems to have been unblocked by Freestylefrappe [45]. Was there discussion of this somewhere I'm not aware of? -- SCZenz 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course not. Freestylefrappe is making a WP:POINT yet again, and has undermined concenus and previous situations. I recomend a re-block immediately. -Zero^Talk 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nope. It's just typical bad-faith wheel-warring, of the sort that should lead to the development of some sort of policy, but won't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone construct an Arbitration case against Mistress Seline Kyle? If they can, clearly they need to do so, since admins cannot agree among themselves on what should be done. -Splash^talk 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is consensus here at WP:AN/I. The fact that one admin is willing to reverse the decision, without discussion, doesn't change that. So I don't see an ArbCom case as necessary. -- SCZenz 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It does change it. If one admin can be found who will unblock the user, then there cannot, by definition, be a community ban. As WP:BAN says, "Some editors are so odious that not one of the 600+ admins will unblock them." I'm saying this only because there is obviously disagreement, rather than because I support unblocking or whatever (I have no position on this case), and the user's blocklog indicates substantial evidence is available for an Arb case that would likely result in an injunction of some sort fairly quickly, pendin the final outcome of the case. (Though, given the usual duration of an arb case, you'd be better of just using the law courts.) -Splash^talk 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Freestylefrappe's reasoning seems to be that it is okay to use the label "fascism" to describe the actions of Wikipedia administrators but not Wikipedia as a whole. --JWSchmidt 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: Now Improv put in a one month ban. Maybe that has consensus...? -- SCZenz 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

At risk of sounding like a scratched record: it needs unanimity among admins, not consensus. It is not fair to any user to iterate on their block length. -Splash^talk 18:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For a permanent ban, this may be true. A one month block is absolutely justified and does not need to unanimity. Since only one admin disagrees with a permanent block, there's obviously strong consensus for a limited block. No admin should unblock without a very good reason. This is no longer a ban, so "I disagree" is not a valid reason to unblock. Carbonite | Talk 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support a one month block. Carbonite | Talk 18:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One month seems like a sensible length. Hopefully a line can be drawn under the matter now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Ms. Knott. Should be instated as a sensible blocking period, and prevents controversy, as well as coincides with concensus. Next situation, however, should warrent a indefinite ban. Good faith and policy-dedication only goes so far. -Zero^Talk 19:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If the one month block, which I also think is reasonable, is lifted without good reason, then I will restore it. Once. If there is consensus for this block then it will be sustained by such a reasonable show of preparedness to enforce it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm on welcome patrol when I see this come up on RC, and I have to say that i'm dismayed once again after looking at all of this. Selena's incivil to the point where i've given up on bothering defending her, but I look up at all of this and wonder what her crime was, violating WP:DICK,WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA and a variety of the other hodgepodge goobledygook that we call "rules" around here,which she has done, multiple times, or pissing you people off, which she has also done multiple times.

If it's the former, that's fine. Just be clear about that here and now -- I think she's gotten to the point that the minimum would be a few months under our current wiki-legal structure. If it's the latter, than she's right, this place is fascist, i've seen too many times people ignoring any process to try and harm others under the guise of "helping the Encyclopedia". Replace "Encyclopedia" with "Fatherland", and you have the modus operandi of a multitude of fascist governments and movements throughout history: they ignored all other concerns for the good of the nation, and in this case, our nation is the Wikipedian nation, the people who use it and contribute to its articles, images, and yes, culture.

Sometimes those who do things like that feel that there's no other recourse, sometimes those who are on the recieving end of actions like that are instigators and should know that such actions would recieve a due response. Regardless, it's a symptom of a sickness that all of us in the higher echelons of this project have, and few want to admit -- that the way we govern ourselves is in need of a drastic overhaul immediately.

Because if we block Serena out of our own subjective views of her, it's a slippery slope before any of us, along with an assortment of secretly contacted colleagues, can get rid of any of us through any justification, regardless of its merit.

I won't return to this discussion, so if you disagree with what I just said, please feel free to e-mail me or respond on my talk page with your torches and pitchforks, i'll delete your comments if they aren't civil. I'm likely going to break the 1,500 welcome plateau and the 10,000 edit plateau today, and I don't want to dwell on this disgusting state of affairs here if I can avoid it. Karmafist 19:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Selina repeatedly violated the fundemental rule of all social interactions -- Don't be a dick. The community decided she was more trouble than she was worth. If after 3 months, you can't go a week without being blocked for problematic behavior, then the chances for reform are negligible. Raul654 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it would be in order for members of the community to petition the Committee for a permanent injunction in such cases? A quick review of the evidence should be enough to convince the committee of the appropriateness of the proposed permanent block, and with dual support presumably the block would have as strong a legitimacy as any other such block. I'm not particularly thinking about this case, which for now seems to have been settled reasonably satisfactorily, but other possible cases in which strong community consensus but not unanimity exists for an indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the committee's mandate limits us to 1 year blocks (or, depending on interpretation, one year blocks per remedy). On the other hand, in the past, the committee's has basically told admins that in the case of clear-cut problem users like Selina, admins are to proceed at their own discretion. Raul654 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.--Sean Black|Talk 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate: I honestly can't believe that we've put up with this. I can almost guarantuee you that after this month block, she will come back and do it all over again. She hasn't learned anything. If we give people this many chances, despite the fact that they have repeated their insanely disruptive behaviour over and over and over and over again, then we might as well just let them run rampant. I'm pissed off about this, frankly, and I hope that something gets done, even if we have to waste the ArbCom's time with it.--Sean Black|Talk 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for helping the clueless and the newcomers. You make a mistake, you get warned. You make a big mistake, you get blocked temporarily. If you come back and start making good edits, all is forgiven. You make a second mistake, you get blocked again. You make a few more mistakes, you get blocked again and again and again. And again. And again and again. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, does this person have the intention and/or ability to be a serious contributor? I believe the project is far beyond the point where we need to bend over backwards to accommodate problematic users in order to extract out of them every last good edit that's in them. On the contrary, this extreme tolerance, which may have been fully justified in the past, may hurt us at some point in the future. In fact, this has already happened: I had to help several editors who had strange encounters with some of our more quirky users and who got quite irritated by the fact that they had to put up with some rather bizarre behavior. Our desire to help the problematic users should be balanced with the need to protect those who want to contribute in a stress-free environment.

In the specific case of Ms Selina, I have seen some very trollish behavior and am frankly at a loss as to why it has been tolerated for so long. In order to determine whether she really is a troll, we'd have to read her mind, of course. But, as plenty of ArbCom decisions have affirmed, we do not need to make that determination: if someone acts like a sockpuppet, they can be blocked like one. And if Ms Selina acts like a troll, she should be blocked or even banned like one. I've cleaned up a major mess she made, where she dug in on an unreasonable position and made a number of edits that were arguably in violation of WP:POINT. I've seen numerous violations of WP:AGF: instead of admitting she might be wrong, she will accuse others of being sockpuppets making a concerted effort to get her. I've seen her level unfounded accusations against users and admins. I've seen her interpret things as personal attacks that ordinary people wouldn't think twice about. I've seen her retaliate with personal attacks. For me, those are the marks of the troll. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, their are limits. Djegan 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed: in several of the edit wars she was involved in, the final version which is currently live was the version she was pushing. Even when it was repeatedly stated to be against consensus. Why is that? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

She isn't being blocked for being wrong. She's being blocked, when you get right down to it, for not interacting reasonably and with due consideration for other editors, and repeatedly demonstrating an inability to work with, rather than against, the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If that was true, why weren't User:Snowspinner, User:Ambi, User:David Gerard and User:Kelly Martin all blocked? Let alone User:Malber and User:Antaeus Feldspar. Seems to be a bit strange that some people are allowed to get away with murder, while others merely have to move and they get destroyed. Oh and get rid of the ridiculous ban on me already. You all know that I never made a legal threat. One was made TO ME. There's a difference. You banned the wrong guy. Zordrac 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All the afterfore mentioned editors never recieved weekly blocks. They also discuss issues in a level-headed manner. -Zero^Talk 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Freespeechstore

Richard Scoville, subject of this article, has sent a legal threat to the Help Desk mailing list. Since the article was created by User:Rscoville, and since the real Scoville is furious and has already put up a page on his site attacking not only Wikipedia, but Maru, who discussed the problem with him on the mailing list, it's obvious that the User who created the article is not him. As a result, I will be blocking User:Rscoville as an imposter. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. After some quick Googling, it's not a surprise he reacted this way. [46]--SarekOfVulcan 03:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A question about AOL autoblocks(copied from User_talk:Curps)

I know that when you want to block an entire AOL range you sometimes use commands like 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of...' to take out the entire range for 15 minutes,

the question is, could you use the same method to clear AOL autoblocks? as in 'unblocked User:64.23.132.13/22'? Or even better,

how about 'blocked User:64.23.132.13/22 with an expirey time of 0 minutes',

then just do the same thing for each of the three major AOL ranges, 64.x.x.x, 152.x.x.x, and 205.x.x.x, maybe add it as a daily function for your bot, to clear any autoblocks that might pile up during the course of the day?--64.12.117.5 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, that won't work. I use an ISP that is owned by AOL, and I've been hit by the autoblocker because of some of the AOL trolls, and unblocking has been darned impossible. Unblocking other autoblocked AOL IP's has not cleared mine, so I would tend to think there aren't ways of doing that. Geogre 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if unblocking range blocks works, but adding a 2-second block on that same range will clear those blocks. Then it's just a matter of clearing all the autoblocks, which can be searched for on the block log relatively simply. Ral315 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

I'm attempting to keep blatant violations of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE out of the Debates over Wal-Mart article. Unfortunately, I'm currently up against the electric fence and have no reverts left. Here's an example of KDRGibby using the article as a POV essay: [47]. Note that Mallaby's arguments are endorsed in the encyclopedic voice, and that there isn't even a citation for the blatant POV under "Wal-Mart and Product Controversy". There are areas where reasonable Wikipedians disagree on POV issues, but this blatantly crosses the line. Note that this kind of behavior has gotten KDRGibby brought in front of Arbcom. I need some assistance in keeping the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Also, could someone please remind KDRGibby of WP:CIVIL - see [48], [49], [50] et. al. I try to avoid getting sucked into edit wars, but the alternative here is to allow the use of Wikipedia as a POV soapbox. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit appears okay to me. Thanks for the alert -- I'll get started on adding this evidence to the arbcom case. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation here, is his user page breaking the rules or no? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, both his user and user talk pages should be removed from the article-space categories they're in. —Cleared as filed. 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have previously asked him to do so when he decided to copy his POV version of communism (IIRC) onto his talk page, but he refused. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've warned him against personal attacks in edit summaries; I'll start blocking him if he continues in the practice. He's deleted warnings about it from his talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, threats, harassment, personal attacks by User:211.30.206.11/other IPs/User:PatCheng

Having two ANI posts ignored over the past couple months, his misbehavior has unsurprisingly not subsided. He continues to daily follow my edits and revert them, such as this revert of Wild Swans (a sore subject for him), in which I did little more than restate what was already written in a more sensible fashion. He deleted the picture, which amounts to simple vandalism. So does, I believe, the removal of others' comments on talk pages which don't belong to the user. [51]

He started his career here by vandalizing user pages such as mine (but others' as well), and he continues to make personal attacks, in edit summaries, in article talk pages, and in user talk pages. [52] [53] [54]

More details found on my user page, which leads to the other ANI reports and other edits. Any action this time? Maybe a token response? --TJive 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, as 211.30.206.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does seem to be of negative value to the project. Going by the contribs, they could do with a block, and I would block, if they'd been adequately warned. That doesn't seem to be the case, though: I only see one, mildish and very recent, warning on his/her page. I can't slam them with a block on the strength of that, especially since they haven't edited after the warning. There's no warning of any import on the page of PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) either, and I can't find the other IPs you refer to. Hmmm, I see 211.30.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from one of your links, is that the same person? That IP stopped editing in September, though. Could you please supply any other IPs that have been abusive, and preferably also give links to your previous complaints, as I'm having trouble locating them on your talkpage? Diffs to your original complaints would be fine. Or else just a renewed explanation of what they did and why you assume all the accounts to be the same user, if that's simpler. This is not a token response, I'll do what I can if you supply the info I request. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for taking a look at this problem. The comment you mentioned on his page was only left by the administrator MONGO after I made this latest complaint.

Here are the IPs I know of that he has used. [55] [56] [57] [58] These are the ones that started following my edits, starting in September (the second one is mostly a list of articles I had been editing). You will see the same pattern of articles that match my own by dates. I stopped editing between sometime in late October and early January, so I don't know what other IPs he might have used in the meantime.

The other connection running through the IPs is a focus on Chinese-related articles, specifically negative edits pertaining to the Falun Gong on pages like The Epoch Times.

Now, September is when he first became a problem. Initially it was just a matter of his personal attacks and POV pushing, some of which I noticed and reverted. Because I didn't satisfactorily discuss a particular article with him, I was blocked by User:Rama. I made a post on ANI about this, which mostly focuses on Rama's actions. I don't have the diff (it was in September) but it's archived. [59]

Meanwhile, the anon IPs started to follow my edits (and sometimes others') and harass and insult various users. Here are just a few examples. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Phrases like, "fuck off and die", "retarded", "Americocrap", etc. One that I recall (but can't find ATM) is, "I piss on your bloody Americrap flag." As you mentioned, one of the IPs was warned several times for this, and blocked. He evaded the block by using another IP, and never discussed or apologized for the remarks. Rama chose to ignore the whole situation once my block was over (and artificially extended), and after a few more weeks I stopped editing because I did not have time to mess with it.

A little later, User:PatCheng was created, and first edits on November 1 with talk messages to Rama's page and another user complaining about me. [66] [67]

Hello, TJive has repeatedly deleting off sections of articles he don't agree with without consensus. [68][69][70]. Several months ago he has been warned by Rama, and he's back doing it again

So the account is started to post talk comments which reference my dispute with him specifically, and is only used a few more times during the remainder of the year, reverting the Human rights in Cuba and Fidel Castro articles, and trolling a talk page. [71] January sees the beginning of renewed activity for "PatCheng", when I started editing again. Both PatCheng and this anon start moving "No Gun Ri incident" to "No Gun Ri massacre". His only comments in talk (as seen elsewhere) are to disparage me. [72] This message, by the way, is a tacit admission that he is the anon (not that he has denied it), who also tried to delete a message on that talk page pertaining to him. For my first January ANI report, see this diff but also this archive. The page warns that longer messages get ignored, which this was. Unfortunately, shorter messages mean "I need more evidence". So, happily, I have obliged.

It has gotten to the point now where, for a few weeks, I have been forced to revert several articles daily just for my edits to stay on the site at all. This has led several times to other users complaining to me that I am engaging in an inappropriate edit war and my having to explain every single time that something else is going on.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. --TJive 22:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to these? [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. This T Jive person has regularly vandalised and started edit wars in political articles relating to Cuba and Fidel Castro, pushing some Cuban exile anti-Castro agenda. His use of words regularly blackwashes communists or whoever he hates, while whitewashes articles involving conservative Americans or pro-American dictators. Even his User page trolls against me and other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.206.11 (talk • contribs)

User removing British

A user has been systematically attempting to replace British as a nationality with English on a huge number of articles with no prior discussion or consensus and has continued to do it despite my messages on their talk page to stop. The user has an account Special:Contributions/Layla12275 but also uses Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73 and Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226 in order to evade a block for 3RR (although the user denies this). There has been some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#User_replacing_British_with_English. I would appreciate an admin asking the user to revert their edits as there has been no discussion let alone consensus on removing British nationality on WP. Arniep 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All three have been warned. It appears that one of those IP's is from our old friends at Vandal High School and carries many warnings already. Nevertheless, let's hope that this is a single person with strong feelings who will respect our practices and not anyone with a wild hair or wild idea. Geogre 22:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very common in the UK to refer to people as Scottish/English/Irish/Welsh rather than British. Referring to people as "British" is considered highly unusual. So, while it is inappropriate behaviour to make these changes unilaterally, the end result isn't inappropriate, or an example of controversy. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'd totally disagree with that. In general people from England are described as British in any other major reference work, and most people I know (in England) also regard themselves as British. Arniep 23:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Having lived in England, Wales and Ireland I recollect only one time that someone described themselves as British, and that was a friend of mine in the Navy whose mother was English and father was Scottish. Everyone else uses either their one nationality or a combination. English people calling themselves British is very rare, at least where I come from (East Midlands), perhaps it varies depending on region? - FrancisTyers 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I describe myself as British, and not English. Secretlondon 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Legally, English, Welsh and Scots are all British (British Nationality Act 1981), but really I don't care which way it is described as long as it's consistent: On Ian McKellen there's people reverting English to British, and on Robert Carlyle reverting British to Scottish. It makes my head hurt --TimPope 23:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that isn't surprising. Generally it is accepted in reference works that Scottish and Welsh people are not described as British, but every person from England that I checked is described as British. Arniep 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just check two reference works at random: Compact Oxford Reference Dictionary - Siegfried Sasson, English. Hutchinson Factfinder - William Wordsworth, English. --TimPope 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well they are both people I would think of as very English. The point is I don't think that everyone identifies as English, especially ethnic minorities and people of close descent from Irish, Welsh or Scottish people for example. Britannica also lists Wordsworth and Sassoon as English, but Ian McKellen (who has close Scottish ancestry) as British. So really noone should just assume anyone from England should be identified as English. Arniep 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for people from any country. Ideally we should go on what they think. How does Ian describe himself? If a reference for that can't be found then no mention of his ethnicity need to be made. We just say that he is an actor from the United Kingdom born in Lancashire. - FrancisTyers 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simple. Internationally many, particularly in the US, use English when they mean British (ie, from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, eg, saying Queen of England when legally there has not been a queen of England, or indeed a kingdom of England, since 1707). However certainly in the last decade since home rule was granted, British is not used to refer to people in the United Kingdom outside England (and Unionists in Northern Ireland). People from Wales and Scotland take high offence if called British, firstly because they want to be referred to by their own nationality (as far as they are concerned, Scotland and Wales are nations and should be referred to as such, irrespective of legal technicalities) and secondly because given the international tendency to equate British and English, they believe that saying that someone from Scotland is British can be interpreted as meaning they are from England. Calling someone from Scotland and Wales british is seen as POV, offensive and politically incorrect. The only issue is how to categorise people from England. Most English people have no problem with being called British. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Largely agree aside from Most English people have no problem with being called British.. I personally equate being called British with ignorance. Depending on who the ignorance is coming from I may or may not take offence, for example an American might not know better so it would be ridiculous to take offense, if someone from the UK called me British, I might not take offense but I'd certainly look at them funny - can they not tell from my accent? I wouldn't be offended (but I'd correct them), hell, I'd be more offended if someone thought I was from the South rather than from the Midlands ;) but I would be suspicious. I can only think of one occasion when someone has specifically described themselves as British and that guy had a Scottish dad and an English mum. - FrancisTyers 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone from England should be tagged English. Many people who are of close descent from Scottish, Welsh, or Irish or ethnic minorities might actually find it offensive. Arniep 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, see above for my suggestion. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My 1992 UPI stylebook (it may be a bit dated by now, I don't know if a new version has been published) has this entry:

British, Briton(s) The people of Great Britain: The English, Scottish and Welsh. Do not use Brits except in direct quotations.

It has not entry for English. (I don't know if that helps but it was interesting to look up.) RJFJR 00:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dang it, folks! Let's not hash this out here, eh? The warnings I put on the pages was true: it doesn't matter which one is right or true. The fact is that the category folks have argued this for over a year, and they've got some consensus. For myself, I tend to call folks like Wordsworth "English," too. That's because the next word from my pen is "poet," and Wordsworth is an English-poet, and so is Robert Burns, even though the latter was a Scottish person (i.e. English language poet). Again, it sort of doesn't matter whether we can subdivide or not: we settle on the tag that is most inclusive and accurate. Would one want to tag Alfred the Great as a Wessex king and not an English king (I mean in terms of category)? I understand if people want to use an historical designation (English if they were from the time when the kingdoms were separate, British if before they were kingdoms or before union), but I think we've got to distinguish between profession, ethnicity, and nationality. This tag is only the latter. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if I am, let's hash it out at a more appropriate place -- the category talk, the bio MoS talk, etc., and not AN/I, because any way you slice it making a unilateral change on dozens of articles without discussion is blockable. Geogre 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got to distinguish between profession, ethnicity, and nationality Agree. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am an ignorant American but I thought in one traditional sense British was sometimes used to refer to the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the island of Britain, especially the Welsh, Scots and non-Danelaw areas of England, as in the context of Arthur as the quintessential Briton. Is this not a recognized inclusive usage? alteripse 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Briton is not the same as British iirc. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

English, Scottish and Welsh are the standard descriptors. "British" is ambiguous and politically-charged; and considered offensive/pejorative, or at least inaccurate, by many people. There is absolutely no case for intimidating new Users with threats of blocks: that is totally unreasonable.--Mais oui! 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Have you looked at the diffs? Have you looked at the user pages? Are you sure that this is a new user, who happened to go on a rampage and find all articles with "British" and change them? No? Then let's not accuse anyone of biting newbies, eh? There is far too much evidence that this was not a new user and far too little that the user was bitten. Geogre 13:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So? English is ambiguous and politically-charged; and considered offensive/pejorative, or at least inaccurate, by some. Considering the number of imigrants to the united kindom of great britian and northen irland in the last 50 or so years the idea that british is not an acceptable designation is interesting but flawed. You could hardly expect someone who is say the offspring of two poles to describe themselves as english.Geni 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course immigrants and 2nd-generation immigrants can become English. It is grossly offensive to English people to imply that their nation is ethnically exclusive. England is a civic nation, built around common institutions, not an ethnic nation based on blood-ties. England is one of the most inclusive nations in the world, and many 2nd generation Poles, Italians, Scots, Pakistanis etc are very proud to call themselves English, and so they should be.--Mais oui! 05:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm really? Do you have data to back this up?Geni 05:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(N.) Irish, Scottish and Welsh are usually referred to as Irish, Scottish or Welsh, except when the context is British, such as Scotsman winning an olympic medal for the British team, a Welshman serving in the British government, a N.Irish reporter working for the BBC, etc. Righly or wrongly, "English" and "British" are used fairly interchangably for English people (an English person or someone outside of the United Kingdom, in an international context at least, would rarely give it much thought), so it shouldn't be an issue in itself. - Calgacus 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is (trying to be) an encyclopedia: we must strive for accuracy, not the lowest common denominator. "British" is the lowest common denominator, and a denominator often imposed from without, not a self-identifyer.--Mais oui! 05:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lowest common denominator is wiki policy except when it offends nationalist sentiments, like Scots getting upset over the flexibility which in practice exists over the words "British" and "English". You are the one after all that insists, contrary to modern scholarly trends, that Gaelic-speaking Scottish Kings should have names like "Malcolm" for Máel Coluim, "Kenneth" for Cináed, etc. So forgive me if I don't take really believe that informing, i.e. prescribing language, is really at the heart of wiki policy. - Calgacus 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, just because some people can't tell the difference does not mean we should not explain it. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unusually, I (British passport) was in Britain three years ago or so during the period of collection of info for the census, and even more unusually I was chosen for a more detailed questioning. One question was of the order of: "Which do you consider to be your primary identity? Youkay, British, English, Scots, Welsh [blah blah blah]." I don't think any option covered a wider area than the Youkay. While tempted to say something like "member of the human race", I decided that the poor, overworked fellow deserved a "sensible", non-time-wasting answer, so (thinking of democracy, the Enlightenment, etc.) I truthfully said "European". He seemed very surprised. I don't think the census writers had envisaged that answer. Is "European" a lower common denominator than "British"? -- Hoary 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For me, I'd go World -> European -> [English, Irish]. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Kmac1036

Greetings. User:Kmac1036 left a note on my talk page here complaining about his ban. The block log here shows that Tony Sidaway blocked him indefinitely with a reason of "(Role account, no article edits, "I created this account to stand up to the establishment")". I have no idea whether this was an appropriate action or not, but I thought I would ask for more information. Anybody know what this is about? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I put this block up for review shortly after performing it. See the relevant thread on WP:AN. In the interests of avoiding unnecessary duplication, I ask for further comments on this block to be made on the relevant section in WP:AN.

• my review request on WP:AN --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved two comments by Greg Asche and Haikupoet to WP:AN in the interests of keeping the discussion in one place. Could other editors please add comments there and not here? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Help with an abusive user?

There doesn't seem to be a specific process to deal with an abusive user once an RfC has been filed, so I'm going to try and ask here. To the point:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Braaad (also check out the talk page)
• User:Braaad and his "contributions"
• And more recently User:T`sitra Yel Darb and his "contributions"

Help? McNeight 22:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes :) --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I did. 2 months ago. I got as far as RfC, which still hasn't been acted upon, and then he disappeared for a while. I was willing to let bygones be bygones, until he showed back up on the RfC page taunting me and flouting the process. (I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or not... my sarcasm filter is just plain busted from all of this). McNeight 23:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, my apologies for the ambiguity. If the user in question ignores the RfC, you should request mediation or, if you think it's important enough and the user will ignore mediation, consider filing a request for arbitration, in which case the issue will be ruled upon by the Arbitration Committee, who can impose warnings, probation, blocks, or even bans. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Next step, mediation. McNeight 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to his most recent user talk page, he is off to create yet another sock puppet. Joy. McNeight 17:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet found. Compare the user page of User:T`sitra Yel Darb with User:Vinnie von Go. Both are now listed on the RfC page, but if these and User:Braaad would kindly be blocked for sock puppetry, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. McNeight 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Son Gohan and 69.231.85.34

The Son Gohan article is contuinally edited, not so much vandalized because the info is partially correct, by a consistently changing IP (with 69.231.85.34 being it's latest) but it's obviously the same person. At the article's talk page, I have asked twice for the person to stop, but he/she just won't quit. Maybe protection of the article would be best... Kusonaga 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP's edits seem to be spaced out far enough that protection doesn't seem reasonable (the last instance before today's was 3 days ago). If we are going to protect it should be semi. BrokenSegue 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as something can be done about. Kusonaga 07:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:FortressHunter

Could someone get this guy to stop vandalizing my user page. Thanks.Tommy 1205 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That user doesn't exist, and your user page has never been edited. In fact, this is your first edit. This is very confusing. --Golbez 05:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reporting abuse of page "Chinese New Year" by users

Dear Wikipedia,

I have recently found a user who was insulting the Chinese community by putting a highly disgusting image.

Accused User: Jazz Jack Rabbit

Attached is my proof, this is the original, it IS NOT MODIFIED by any software.

[79] - Link to Evidence

This was his page edit: [80]

Seems like the user, Jazz Jack Rabbit, renamed himself as Annonymous Coward.

Proof: [81], [82]

Thanks, cncxbox

This particular username has been blocked now. He has nothing against the Chinese community though, he's just targeting various pages linked from the Main Page, and today Chinese New Year is linked from it. He's using a number of different names. -- Curps 07:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Many articles that are linked on the front page get vandalized, such as Today's Featured Article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Here's another one: Douglasses (talk · contribs). Examine first few edits. It's pretty obvious. --JW1805 (Talk) 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, sock indef. blocked and Zephram's block reset. Not that resetting the block time makes much difference since it was last reset two days ago for use of sockpuppets and will most likely use sockpuppets again. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An unsolicited argument for clemency for Zephram and the contents of his sock drawer

Can I make a suggestion here? I know it goes against the grain, but I actually think Zephram's got something to offer this project - he clearly has the enthusiasm to keep trying, and it's not like he's always being a vandal as such, and I have seen some of his edits (and had some long conversations with him on my talk page) which lead me to believe - perhaps naïvely - that he could be a considerable asset to the project. Certainly he has a bee (or two) in his bonnet - but, to be candid, he's not the only person round this place like that. I have had a number of long and perfectly civil conversations with him on subjects about which we nevertheless disagree strongly.

A number of admins are spending a huge amount of their time hunting him and his sockpuppets down and blocking them, at the expense of doing something constructive like editing articles. This doesn't seem a good use of anyone's time to me. Wouldn't it be better to swallow the collective conviction and just engage with him, not in an adversarial fashion as has happened before, but to try to agree mutual coexistence - mediation, not arbitration - which, just maybe, might involve some compromise by the project which would see Zephram return as an editor on the site?

Focussing too hard on the rules and the decision of the arbcom (or whatever it was that saw him banned in the first place) or the (putative) good of the project misses the point: the point is we have an enthusiastic contributor who doesn't look like he's going to go away; we have a number of admins who are wasting a lot of time chasing him down. Wouldn't it be better to try and sort this out?

For the record, I'm not a sockpuppet, I'm not a meat puppet, Zephram hasn't put me up to this (nor have I discussed it with him) and I don't necessarily defend or agree with anything Zephram has said or done on this site (though I admit I am less troubled by his attitude that some) - I just think that the project is being unimaginative and is unnecessarily using up its own resources to squash someone who basically has his heart in the right place. A community needs the odd off-the-wall character. A place like Wikipedia ought to be able to see that? ElectricRay 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark and subpages? Because...well, read it.--Sean Black|Talk 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, in parts. It's pretty petulant, all round. It's an arbitration hearing - Zephram's a defendant. Of course he's going to be defensive. People get like that. Have you read Zephram's conversation on Universal Subjectivity? ElectricRay 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• We've hardly got a shortage of odd off-the-wall characters. We don't negotiate with terrorists. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you should use that example, because that's exactly the point that I think you're missing. As long as you don't negotiate with terrorists, you'll have terrorism. You may notice that when you start negotiating, "terrorists" turn out to be people who feel very strongly about things, differently to you, but who have no other means of expressing their viewpoint - they're disenfranchised. Who the terrorist is - and whether there's a terrorist at all - is a matter of perspective. (apologies; i'm a relativist) ElectricRay 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If Zephram wishes to contribute in a positive manner to the project, he simply needs to stop evading his ban for six months and then he may resume editing. These are the terms of the ArbCom decision and by creating sockpuppet after sockpuppet, Zephram has chosen to "disenfranchise" himself indefinitely (the ban's expire date is reset with each sockpuppet). If you truly believe that Zephram can be an asset to Wikipedia, then you should take it upon yourself to convince him to cease editing for six months. If he's unwilling to do so, then there's really not much to discuss. Carbonite | Talk 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ummmm, that's a really terrible idea, ElectricRay! :) Focusing on the "good of the project" is precisely what we should be doing. Keeping trolls like Zephram Stark from disrupting Wikipedia is time well spent, as far as I'm concerned. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you guys hold the whip hand, so I suppose that's where the conversation ends. But, for my money, there's more than a whiff of the Stanford Prison Experiment in the attitudes being expressed here. I thought you might take a more mature approach, but I suppose I'll just have to be disappointed. I don't have any way of contacting or talking with Zephram, Carbonite, because whenever he pops up to talk on my talk page, you ban him. ElectricRay 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Email him if you want to contact him. If you really think he's an asset to Wikipedia, appeal to Jimbo. Simple as that.--Sean Black (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have his email address. ElectricRay 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Zephram Stark, Special:Emailuser/Jimbo_Wales.--Sean Black (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop Zephram a line. I left a message on Jimbo's talk page. ElectricRay 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A coin, equally weighted on both sides, has a fifty percent chance of revealing heads. When flipping the coin only ten times, its standard deviation is loosely constrained. The more we flip the coin, however, the tighter we can predict the average and deviation. In effect, order arises from chaos as more chaos is added to a system. Human unpredictability is the chaos added to the Wikipedia system. Because there are so many people and so much chaos at Wikipedia, it becomes possible to see order. Just as with the individual coin toss, each person at Wikipedia changes the outcome less significantly as the system grows. We can know the stable state of Wikipedia within an extremely small tolerance in the same way that we know the nearly exact result of tossing a coin ten thousand times. Because of its size, all paths at Wikipedia lead, in a relatively short amount of time, to the same outcome: control by consensus, not by hierarchy. Jimbo Wales and his most powerful generals can only avoid this outcome by destroying the project. Seeing the stable state, we can pick the smoothest path to its completion. Projects like Wikipedia only function well through consensus, not control. It pains me to see people like Carbonite fight this inevitability. --Ayn Rant 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you, Zephram. You see, Admin community, this is quite eloquent; it's sophisticated; it captures the nuance and states the dilemma quite nicely. Don't you think? ElectricRay 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also a blatant violation of his ban. Also, notice that Zephram's "solution" is to destroy the project. Please stop enabling his trolling, ElectricRay. Carbonite | Talk 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, this is fair warning to Zephram that if he uses any sockpuppets from this point on, I'm going to request that the ArbCom extend his ban to one year. Creating sockpuppets is simply disruptive and immature. Carbonite | Talk 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "enabling" anyone's "trolling" - I invited Carbonite to discuss this privately, outside Zephram's view, and Carbonite didn't respond at all. I am simply asking for some perspective to be applied, and failing that, someone - anyone - to address substantively the points I have made. Instead I've had the old Dalek routine: "resistance is useless... resistance is useless", which I think is a poor show. Having said that, it doesn't seem to me as if Zephram is especially interested in coming back into the fold anyway, so perhaps I really am wasting my breath. Ultimately, you can extend Zephram's ban for three million years; it doesn't seem to be stopping him, does it? ElectricRay 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to note that if we're daleks, then the Jimbo is Davros, which is a stange thing to think about. Beyond that, please read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, and subpages, and those pages linked from it. Your viewpoint should change. If it doesn't, well, then I think you're a poor judge of character. Zephram is not an asset to the project, he is a nusiance.--Sean Black (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While I have every respect for Jimbo Wales, I don't think Davros is an entirely inappropriate comparison, as it happens. But it was your comparison, not mine. Whether or not I am, or you are, a poor judge of character is not really the point. Who is to say what is "poor"? Zephram's crimes seem to boil down to an idiosyncratic - ok, a silly - take on the distinction between "inalienable" and "unalienable", trenchant (and probably silly) views on terrorism, and the fact that he's been calling Carbonite and his friends names. Sticks and stones...

Anyway, I can see that I have been wasting my time here, but at least I tried. ElectricRay 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

What is this? An attempt to completely ignore the fact that some people weren't elected for a reason? Why are Kelly Martin and Snowspinner given any sort of authority in the Arbitration committe whatsoever, when the community clearly view them as inappropriate to even be admins. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They don't have any authority. They're just volunteering to help, and their offer was accepted. What's the big deal? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hate to tell you this Ril, but Kelly and Snowspinner were not stripped of powers. If the "community" decided that they shouldn't be admins, their powers would've been stripped. The clerk position is designed to help the arbcom out. They will have no say in cases. They wo't even have read access to the arbcom mailing list. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Kelly does have read access but only because she's a former arbitrator. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The clerk page says that they will have access to the mailing list. Indeed, other than the title that seems to be the only 'benefit' of this position. The rest of it seems like things which the general community could do, but generally does not. Anyone can 'summarize evidence', make suggestions on proposed principles and decisions, et cetera. I've done those things in the past and I'm not even an admin. Opening and closing arbitration requests theoretically could be done by anyone, but to date hasn't because it is better handled by people who are very familiar with the procedures... which makes sense to continue that way. If they hadn't put a name to the position I doubt anyone would have even noticed. It certainly can't be viewed as a sinecure... rather the opposite. The only potential 'concern' is clerks privately 'influencing' the arbitors... but frankly the position provides little benefit in doing so which couldn't be pursued by non-clerks. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is somethinga bit odd about it. OK, they volunteered to help — so let them help. Why introduce official titles, a "department" with a "head", and the rest? We're not a state with a government; we don't need civil servants to help our elected representatives. It's not entirely surprising that this looks to a number of editors as though it's an attempt to give chums a consolation prize after they were rejected as ArbCom members. In a way it doesn't matter what the truth is: it looks bad, and I think that it was at best a misjudgement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with the clerk position. This has nothing to do with Kelly (although I believe Snowspinner should be as far from ArbCom as possible), but simply with the fact that ArbCom has to read the evidence and form its own opinions, and the clerical position is another filter. I am afraid that ArbCom means getting dirty, getting bored, and going through mountains of evidence, and it is the formation of an opinion through going into all of that evidence that is the very meaning of it. I mistrust all summaries of disputes when I look into them, and, whether ArbCom is democratically appointed or appointed from a slate, the point is that all know who the parties are. It is important, very important, that no one's opinion of a situation take the place of reading the situation. This, though, has nothing to do with which person is acting as a clerk, but merely the position itself. Geogre 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Non issue. If any of them do the job properly they will burn out in a few weeks anyway.Geni 15:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have faith in Phil offering opinions and digesting things in a particular way without getting burned out. Some people think they're Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot, when they're just another butcher with a knife. That's my problem: I don't want my arbitrators taking someone's word for it or being influenced by helpful volunteers, because, sooner or later, they're going to replace their native wit with the newsbyte. Geogre 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one have no intention of solely following the clerks' opinions. I only intend to use their summaries as a place to start research into a case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How about useing the evidence as a place to start reseach into the case?Geni 16:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the evidence is so often a pile of steaming crap. It might astonish you, but I do in fact have a life that extends beyond Wikipedia (though I will admit that it is basically studying...) and wading through said crap can be made far easier and faster if some basic work has been done beforehand. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case why did you run for arbcom membership?Geni 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not his fault that a lot of evidence is crap. The AC doesn't scale. Something has to be done to ease workload. This seems a sensible option. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam Korn knew or should have known what the job of arbcom entailed when he ran for it. I fail to see how he can legitimately complain about the workload.Geni 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So do I. But this isn't about Sam's workload or lack of it and he isn't complaining. It's about running the AC well and getting the work done. The AC doesn't scale. We are still growing exponentially. The AC is and has always been overworked and too slow. Something needs to be done about that. Let's give the clerks idea a try. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You've got three extra memebers.Geni 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's completely unnecessary, Geni. Yes, I did know the workload. Yes, I was prepared to do it. Yes, I am prepared to do it. That doesn't mean I can't be happy to farm a bit of it out to someone else if they're willing to take it. And Theresa, did you really mean that it's my fault that a lot of evidence is crap, or have I misunderstood who "he" is? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Sam. I've rectified my mistake.The Sam Korn taster He tastes yummy

The position you were elected to involved that workload. Subleting it is an interesting aproach. No matter burnout will take care of it soon enough.Geni 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I occasionally feel like there must be some other Snowspinner out there that eats babies or something, based on people's apparent descriptions of me. Phil Sandifer 16:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

100 Google hits - it must be true. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a common AfD mistake! Delete: only 27 of them are unique, and you forgot to enclose it in speech marks, upon which you get zero hits. The assertion is at best unverfiable. -Splash^talk 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Verified [83]. And from a most reliable source as well. However, since it never made the WP:Signpost let alone the media, it may well not be notable. So delete. --Doc ^ask? 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, the old "Phil Sandifer is an expert" tactic, eh? Sorry we don't accept the word of experts on their say-so. Strong delete! Unverifiable! Inedible! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And vanity at that. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I should clear this up for everyone. The arbitrators eat full-grown adults, or "Soylent green on the hoof" as we like to call it. The clerks eat the younger morsels because they have not yet grown their full set of razor-sharp fangs. The only danger in this arrangement is if the arbs eat a past or future AC defendant, owing to the danger of catching mad luser disease - David Gerard 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing clerks can do very usfully is open cases that have enough votes, close cases that are finished, and remove requests that have not passed. This work that an arbitrator currently has to do and is not likely to be controversial. As for summarising evidence. Let's see how it goes.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Mel and Geogre on this. I strongly disagree with the clerk's task of writing summaries of the evidence for the arbcomm from which they'll work. Summaries written by clerks is an all-too-tempting opportunity for the injection of personal view in a case to influence a particular outcome. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I also disagree strongly that the clerks should write summaries. At least let people in arbitration disallow certain wikipedians they do not trust to write their summary. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to write a summary. If you don't want your evidence summarised/refactored, make it good in the first place. The less work the clerks do the better. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes everyone's job easier if people would actually write good evidence summaries in the first place. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since people are discussing clerks, I want to mention my more narrowly drawn objection. I am not bothered by someone writing summaries of the evidence, since in principle anyone can do that. However, there is a special case when the person summarizing the evidence is also a former ArbCom member. Apparently, all former ArbComs indefinitely retain access to the arbcom mailing list and hence have access to the private discussions of ArbCom and could potentially even participate in those discussion, even though they no longer have a vote. If a former ArbCom is then acting to present and summarize the evidence. They could use their privileged knowledge to tailor their presentation in response to the reactions of ArbCom. Even if this person never actually abused their power, I find the mere appearance of someone who is organizing the case having unfettered access to the private thoughts of the people judging it to be a dreadful image of potential impropriety. I have argued this point at length, asking that former Arbs serving as clerks should relinquish access to the ArbCom mailing list while in that position, but apparently have failed to convince anyone. Dragons flight 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As you probably will now and even if you can convince anyone this is and always has been an internal arbcom matter o nothing short of the board and Jimbo can actually force them to get rid of or change the clerk's office. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have followed what I have been saying, you would note that I have no desire to "get rid" of the clerks office, only to address one specific conflict before it becomes entrenched. I realize that no one here has the power to force you to do anything, but Jimbo and others do generally listen to the community, and so I wanted to raise the issue before the community in the (perhaps futile) hope that others might also feel strongly about this issue, as I do. Dragons flight 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Head Clerk position is more administrative than actually one of doing clerk work, so I doubt that'll be a problem. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it honestly funny that Ril tried to MFD the clerks page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And you folks think it's laughable, that these are just the whinings of ne'erdowells? That's the kind of attitude that got certain people voted far from ArbCom. Unilateralism is wrong, and saying, "You can't make them" is the logic of George W. Bush. It is not right that ArbCom (the present one) allowed the position "without dissent" and therefore, presumably, with consent and that it is now there for good and all volunteers are welcome. In fact, if I find myself presenting evidence on an ArbCom case, I do not want certain people to present a "summary" of it. Until I'm assured that those persons can read and assess nuance, I do not want to be summarized for others, and I do not want it joked away as just one of those things. If the project is to have any regulation at all, we're not going to manage it with more opacity in our procedings and more good old boyism. Nor do we just shrug and say, as one person said, "You'll never stop us." Geogre 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My response to that is tough luck, unless Jimbo or the board (or of course the arbcom) wish to stop it then there's gonna be a clerk's office though I'm sure they're open to suggestions on how things like that should be handled. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. "Tough luck." Well, that's a healthy attitude. So nice that there is universal suffrage -- all the better to agree with things. Geogre 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The community is free to give input to the arbcom, but essentially, the arbcom is Jimbo's representative. If they want Kelly and Phil as clerks, or want an official office for clerking in the first place, the community can't stop them (except through civil disobedience by refusing to abide by the arbcom's rulings). As a clerk, I will personally never remove or even touch a person's comments unless they are seriously screwing up the evidence page. Instead, I'll summarise their evidence in a section of my own and add a note to the original evidence section to the effect that "this evidence has been summarised below by Johnleemk". Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should the community be excluded from this? Of course they don't need to be since if the "clerks" do their job properly they will burnout in short order.Geni 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any clerk would dare to summarise any evidence that you might give in arbitration, geogre, for your powers of expression are not in doubt. But there are some who before arbitration are as mutes, dumbstruck, or overawed, or simply fail to grasp the importance of verifiable evidence.

In the Maoririder case for instance, I presented evidence to refute the proposal of one arbitrator that maoririder had used sock puppets in an effore to evade blocks. In the Baku Ibne case I sorted through a mass of evidence that was presented in a jumbled form, pertaining to over a dozen sock puppets. The evidence clearly pointed to two sources of sock puppetry at a time when we did not have the organised checkuser facilities available now.

The Committee normally has many cases on its hands and is chronically short-staffed. It does not have the resources to undertake massive refactoring of ill-assorted evidence, and the quality of arbitration findings could suffer from this incapacity. Voluntary clerical work has long been a staple of arbitration cases. Until now purely mechanical tasks such as opening a case have been undertaken by arbitrators because there were no other official appointees available to do the job. Now the Committee has a dozen appointed clerks available to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because, Tony, no one but the present ArbCom gets to "approve" these clerks. There are people who have a demonstrated history of misrepresentation when their own favorite subjects come up, and there are people who have a history of announcing that the legal proceedings of ArbCom simply don't apply to them, and there are people who have announced that, because, in their judgment, some aspect of Wikipedia's practice isn't right, they intend to delete it, reword it, or just act contrary to it. Anyone with any allegation of that in their past should be automatically disqualified from a clerical position. Instead, though, the office got "approved" (because no one protested) without sufficient thought about how it should work, who should be on it, how wide a scope it should have. In any case of ArbCom, I'd say the appearance of impropriety should be enough to disqualify. This would not be some dark mark, some impugning of character, some agreement with the allegations, but, if we do not wish to validate every word every vandal has ever written about Wikipedia, we need to be sure, absolutely sure, that ArbCom is not only the most rule-bound and legalistic organ on Wikipedia, but that the people volunteering are the same. Folks should advocate changes, but not there. I've never taken a stance on Kelly Martin, for example, but the controversy surrounding her is sufficient to give people excuses for warring against ArbCom decisions and for people thinking (as the original writer did, above) that this is a back door. This is a Very Bad Idea, and the way that it was approved for all eternity by simple lack of disagreement is the worst part of the whole affair. Geogre 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone with any allegation of that in their past" - what, like when you tried to dismiss me on WP:DRV as a "radical inclusionist"? Your criteria don't sound workable in practice.

In summarising evidence, clerks don't do anything anyone couldn't do on /Workshop. If you presented evidence in a case and your personal least favourite editor gave their opinion on /Workshop, what do you do about that? - David Gerard 07:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

David, if the clerks will always summarize evidence in public, as anyone can do on /Workshop, there's no problem. Will that be the case, do you know? I think the fear people have is that evidence will be summarized in private, and that a spin may be put on it that the parties to the case will be unaware of, and therefore unable to correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for clerks to summarise evidence privately.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on the AC any more, but I can say that the clerks will generally be working in /Workshop with everyone else. However, it has always been possible to give evidence to the AC privately, not on the wiki. What the AC does with it is up to them - David Gerard 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you had volunteered, geogre, you would have been accepted. But there aren't really too many other qualified people around who haven't had someone, somewhere, make some wild accusation about them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The problem here seems to be that because several people have given unreasonable concerns, those concerns that are reasonable get thrown out as the proverbial baby in the bathwater. Radiant_>|< 08:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Which, to me, is a sign that the whole thing was done too hastily. I suspect absolutely no ill motives or duplicity. However, I also think that folks weren't considering how high the profile is and how many evils are in that box Pandora brought them. There is still hope at the bottom, but we've got to grab it quickly. I would suggest that the project of Clerks be put in abeyance until the new ArbCom is in place, that they ask the people who dislike/mistrust the process to fire their best bullets, and then that they try to craft a project that will be as bulletproof as possible. My motives in objecting are, as they ever are, cranky, but they're also based on what happens when people who "lose" RFar's decide to go to war anyway. It's a flat out mess when that happens, and it's a time sink. This Clerk project, as presently structured, increases the chances of malcontents persuading others. Geogre 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. David says above that people have always been able to post in private to the arbcom, but they've not been asked to do it with official arbcom sanction, and that makes a big difference, whether real or perceived. It's true that the arbcom can choose to organize itself however it wants, but hopefully it won't choose to set up a structure that so many people are concerned about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My dear geogre, we currently have twenty-four arbitration cases in process, and three in the closing stages. Twelve months ago today, there were just six cases, now there are twenty-seven. But there are only now three more arbitrators than there were in the first batch two years ago.

The merest act of opening a single arbitration case, once accepted, involves a complex editing procedure, and the notification of parties and observers. Some of it is automated, some of it not. Closing an arbitration procedure involves even more work, including tallying the votes and writing the final decision, notifying the parties of the results and ensuring that the administrators know what to do about enforcement. There are fifteen arbitrators, nearly half of whom have never done any of this paperwork, and all of whom have a lot more important things to do with the twenty-seven cases that are open.

So you'll see clerk marks on Template:ArbComOpenTasks, you'll see clerks making announcements. There are six clerks, and if you look now you'll see that they're already getting involved in cases, ensuring that evidence is presented in a form that is most useful to the arbitrators. Why are we doing this? Because every second spent by a clerk doing this essential menial work is a second saved by an arbitrator examining cases. Wikipedia has grown fast, and it does need people to do simple administrative work, and do it reasonably efficiently.

If we put the clerks office to one side, the workload of the arbitrators would go up and so would the backlog. Simple as that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Like George, I have a problem with imposed summaries. Rest of the tasks are not an issue. Yes, yes, tough luck, and so on. El_C 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the summarizing of cases in secret, and the way people were chosen, that is the problem. The administrative stuff is not an issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to El_C, could you give an example of the kind of thing you mean? In reply to SlimVirgin, Well I guess I was chosen because of my experience of this kind of thing, dunno about the others. I don't think I'd be doing any summarising of cases in secret, but there are times when you need to go a little quietly. The recent Zordrak case was a good example. I may never know what the crucial information available to the Committee was, and I don't need to know it. In the end someone found independent (public) corroboration and he confessed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For David Gerrard, I don't know what WP:DRV is, but you have recently made some calls that I regard as wholly illogical and personal. That's my opinion. However, if you have had an RFar against you, or let's say 3 in a year, and you were to come out on the losing side, let's say twice, or let's just say that you had some other kind of public examination and a ton of folks came in to complain, then that would show that there is a significant number of people who mistrust you. If you're mistrusted, then you're mistrusted. If you're mistrusted, and yet you are acting as a filter between evidence and the arbitrators, then you give grounds to anyone who disagrees with the outcome to suggest that you hijacked or sabotaged the matter, and, because you are mistrusted, a great many people will believe it. You have chosen to interpret my comments personally, which is your prerogative, but, if you can believe it, it's not personal. This is about whether the trolls and problem users have a soap box from which to recruit good users to their side.

For the others, this is absolutely about one area: summaries. If anyone thought about that issue, they certainly didn't think about it for very long. Allowing clerks to be a filter or to give executive summaries is wrong in every possible way. You can say that people always could have all you want, but the fact is that this is an official non-election of persons who are the preference of current folks for secret, Star Chamber activity. It takes away light from the process and helps this "open source" encyclopedia close its sources and procedures. That's a fantastic way to arm the trolls. Cut out the summary function in every way, and I doubt you'll see much objection any more.

And, since people keep wanting to debate this on the grounds of "what harm does it do," let's ask ourselves what benefit we get from the summary? What good does it do? There are lots of cases on the docket. Ok. So? That's why there are more than five arbitrators. The work load is too great? Put more people on the committee. Do not, though, officially sanction people about whom there is disquiet. Nor is this "oh, can anyone have any allegation," but there are significant issues around some people and wild charges about others.

If we must be personal, there is a reason I stay away from conflict as much as I can. I have no patience for it, and I have no patience for all the personal defensiveness and "I'm rubber and you're glue" taunting that takes place. Turn on the light, and stop being caballistic. Geogre 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I echo the concerns raised by Geogre, SlimVirgin, and El_C. The impression given -- at least to me -- by the impressive lack of process surrounding this is that the office of clerk is basically a reward for treating Wikipedia as an IRC social club rather than as an encyclopedia. If the Arbcom doesn't care that it is giving that impression, well, that's fine, I guess. But I don't think anyone should be surprised when good editors interpret the message "tough luck" as "We don't care what editors think." Nandesuka 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More echo here :) And I'd like to quote Tony's explanation of the ArbCom vote "for dummies" [84]:

You will be pleased that the method was successful in weeding out candidates without wide community approval: Kelly Martin, Snowspinner and I are as controversial in the Wikipedia community as we are here and failed to make the necessary 50% approval.'

If they are so controversial and lack wide community approval then they may not be the best fits for what seems like an influential position. Making sense of incoherent evidence is the essential job of an arbitrator - delegating that job seems strange to me. Delegating it to people who lack wide community approval seems even stranger. Not to mention that Snowspinner eats babies :) - Haukur 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (section break)

• I think this is a tricky balancing act. On the one hand, the ArbCom must not be too susceptible to public opinion because that may interfere with fair treatment of their cases. On the other hand, if they stray too far from public opinion they lose the trust of the community. It is easy to say that Snowy/Tony/Kelly is distrusted by the community and only got the job because they had friends on the ArbCom - but saying so doesn't make it so. Similarly, it is easy to say that Snowy/Tony/Kelly is entirely trustworthy and their opponents are just being nasty for no good reason and should be ignored - but saying that doesn't make it so either. The truth lies in the nebulous middle somewhere. Only such issues are very hard to discuss without devolving into mutual flame wars. Radiant_>|< 15:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: I just want to make sure that I am clear on what people are objecting to. No one is objecting to opening and closing cases, and other menial tasks? Lots of people are objecting to clerks summarising evidence privately. If the AC were to decree that all evidence summaries by clerks were public would that put peoples minds at rest? Are there any other worries that people have? (I just want it straight in my own mind what the percieved problems are. The arbitrators are discussing the matter of private evidence summaries now I will report back here our decision as soon as we come to a decision the matter) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonably good summary. I don't care if Willy on Wheels himself opens and closes cases. I don't mind public summaries of evidence as long as anyone who wants to help can do them. - Haukur 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone, so far as I have seen, objects to clerks performing the routine "menial" tasks, as you put it. But to draw an analogy with the American legal system, the clerks aren't responsible for summarizing and presenting evidence, the lawyers are. I believe that the more the "lawyers" (i.e. clerks presenting evidence) are percieved as either having their own personal agenda or trying to advance the arbitrators' agenda then the more people will be uneasy. This can be mitigated by making that part of the process as open and public as possible, but as long as ArbCom is responsible for choosing and instructing clerks, I suspect there will always be some lingering doubt. Given the lack of alternatives, this is probably tolerable, but not ideal. Ideally, we would have a stronger WP:AMA and they could serve as independent quasi-professional "lawyers" to summarize and present evidence on users' behalf. So in summary, I think you'll find that it is having to accept the "lawyering" of people that were handpicked by the court that makes people uneasy and the more that process is obscured, the more people are going to worry that it ceases to be fair. Dragons flight 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What Theresa says does seem to be the nut of the problem, yes. I don't see why the clerks need write access to the mailing list, for example if they are just ordinary editors doing what any ordinary editor could. If they aren't, if they are to have powers beyond the editorial, then there needs to be a jolly good reason for that. And if they are to have such influence (and let's not weasel it away from such if it's emails to a secret list) then the position should be elected, and not appointed. There was even a comment from one of the new clerks that "we should be able to work privately if we so please". What is it that they (the clerks, not the arbs) might need to work on privately, what might they need to reach secret agreements among themselves on if all they are doing is putting pieces of paper in order? If they are to be arbitrators-lite in either appearance or practise, then they should be elected not appointed via IRC popularity contests. -Splash^talk 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hate to be the odd man, but I do disagree with public summaries. I don't think the clerks should be offering summaries in public or private. As courtroom lawyers say, you can't unring a bell, and having someone say something prejudicial or misrepresentative sticks in the mind, regardless of whether it's in public or private. Furthermore, no matter how public or how many other opinions were offered, there would be something "more equal than others" about the clerk's summary. I have no objection to the maintenance, to the contacting of parties, but I have a very strong objection to the summary function. Get rid of that, and I'll keep quiet. Again: the issue for me is not how I feel, but how much the clerical position arms the trolls. (No, I wouldn't decide much on that basis, but this is particularly the troll-dispensing part of the project, and we need confidence in it. If we lose that confidence, we lose all.) Geogre 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If clerk summaries turn out to be problematic we can always get rid of them. I'd like to see if that is actually the case though. I think they may well turn out to be very useful. We simply don't know yet until we give it a try.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, that's like saying, "We'll see if this absolute monarchy thing causes any problems." The problems aren't going to be minor. They're going to be grave. If we can see that it's a bad idea to start off with, if we can see that the potential problems are very serious, then why on earth gamble? Why, when this is one function, and one of the most fishy? Assessing evidence is the soul of arbitration, and this function is being handed off? Being handed off specifically to three people about whom there is a vast amount of ill will? Why? What on earth is worth risking trolls with justification for? This makes no sense at all to me. Couldn't you folks at least wait until the new group is in before opening up a function that apparently is going to be darned difficult to reverse? Why gamble with stakes this high with these particular people (or anyone) with these particular functions at this particular time? It seems to me that there ought to be something monumental to be gained. Geogre 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• (posted a lengthy analysis on Theresa's talk page). Radiant_>|< 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Answerd point by talk on my talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk, I probably do need write access to the mailing list, and it isn't as if I haven't as an ordinary editor already had occasion to join in confidential conversations on arbcom-l in the past--there's nothing special about that, anybody can write, and sometimes opinions of editors are sought by arbcom with regard to, say, the workability of certain kinds of remedy. Having write access is just a convenience for David Gerard who runs the list and doesn't want to have to check in inbox several times a day just in case there is some incoming urgent email from a clerk.

Suppose I'm investigating a case and I find that there is a claim related to the offsite doings of an editor. The relevance to the case seems a bit dubious to me so, before I toddle off looking for corroboration, I might want to ask the committee whether it intends to take such evidence into consideration. The point is that I'd probably suspect that they wouldn't, but I would want to make sure, and I wouldn't want to ask publicy because it might then be blown up out of proportion by the party making the claim and become something of a cause celebre.. I have to consider the right to privacy of the participants in the case and the interests of all in a fair hearing, and so I probably go to arbcom-l and say "look, party X is saying party Y was involved in Z offsite. Does the Committee intend to hear evidence on this allegation?" It could be a drug scandal, or a pornography website, or allegations of professional misconduct--things that if publicised might have serious consequences outside Wikipedia. Obviously commonsense tells me that arbcom wouldn't want to touch that in a million years, but I should still ask. But if I asked publicly I then give the issue a spin that would be inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You could use Special:Emailuser for that. -Splash^talk 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He could but why not have write access? He does not have read access so he cannot see our private discussions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if someone set up an account that had arbcom-l set as its email address. But the mechanism of delivery is immaterial. Whether you send email from a smtp client or via Wikipedia's php interface to smtp, the message arrives in the same inbox. What happens then is a question of whether your sender address is on the mailing list's whitelist. And of course anybody can send such an email. And if it looks to be relevant to arbcom's function it will probably be let through. It's just that, being clerks, they're more likely to have relevant business to discuss. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant a clerk could just email an Arbitrator. Imo, there should not be summaries of evidence that are kept secret, and so the very occasional kind of question you have could esily be asked of one Arb, or that Arb could refer it to the Committee if they prefer. The choice of words is revealing as well: clerks should not be 'investigating' cases per se; they should be summarising the evidence. They are clerks, not detectives and not arbitrators-lite. It also isn't a clerks job, imo, to look for 'corroborating' evidence — it's for the clerk to simply arrange the evidence in a manner usefuller to the Arbitrators who should be conducting their own investigations. That directly avoids the need for the clerks to deal with sensitive issues of the kind you describe. This gets to the core of clerking: the kind of thing you describe is, basically, arbitrating if you are to follow evidence trails, decide what is and what is not corroborated and otherwise investigate cases. Let's be plain: are the clerks substitute arbitrators because the arbitrators don't want to do the legwork (then they should resign forthwith) or are they to carry out the menial tasks that any editor could do, but most choose not to? -Splash^talk 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By its nature, I think an email sent to arbcom-l is probably better than one sent to a single arbitrator who may not happen to look at his email that day. And if he does he only has to forward it on arbcom-l. I don't see any point in introducing this risky extra step when it would be just as easy to email the list--as anyone can.

On what kind of evidence one would look at, I think the feeling of the clerks office is that if evidence was referred to and the arbitrators expressed an interest then, rather than leave the arbitrators to do the digging, the clerks would do it. So the clerks would seek direction from the arbitrators rather than going fishing on their own account. This was the purpose of my example.

No matter what we can say to reassure you, you will always have to face the fact that members of Wikipedia as a functioning entity do communicate significant information to one another in manners that are not publicly accessible, and that they always have done. As a Wikipedia editor I have on a very few occasions, contacted the arbitrators on confidential matters and in turn I have been consulted by them.

But because clerks do menial work for the arbitrators, this does not mean that they participate in decisions, except insofar as Kelly being a former arbitrator may participate freely in any and all arbcom-l discussions. Clerks are not substitute arbitrators, they're just the people who do the drudge work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't know when the 'drudge' work became that of making recommendations to the committee, examining evidence and doing so behind closed doors. That sounds to me like the principal work of the committee. People have not always been appointed by the arbcom expressly for the purpose of communicating with them in secret. If clerks were not talking about running the arbitration themselves, there'd be no problem. But they are: they want to talk to arbs in secret, they want the ability to present their own view of the evidence, in secret. I don't see the need. I do, on the other hand, see the need to have the simple, menial work such as opening, closing, notifying etc etc done by clerks, and the sanity-checking of e.g. workshops to make sure that the morass of proposed executions remedies stays in a shape that is vaguely accessible to a human. But I don't see why this needs cloaks, daggers, smoke and mirrors. -Splash^talk 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone say when and by whom the decision was made that the head clerk had to be a former arbitrator, and why that decision was made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the committee. It's common sense, really, that the head clerk be able to communicate easily with the comittee as a whole. Former Arbitrators keep list access. It's sensible to use someone who already has list access to be head clerk. Really, "head clerk" is no more than an administrative position; I don't believe Kelly actually intends to do clerking work per se. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for the reply. It's not clear why the head clerk, as opposed to any other clerk, would need list access, and if they did, they could be given it, rather than having to be someone who already had it. Does the committee realize that there's widespread concern about this situation: about who was chosen, why they were chosen, and what exactly they'll be doing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concerns. I expect the Committee will review the clerks' existance in a few months time. We are working on the principle of "nothing ventured, nothing gained" to a great degree here. In answer to your question about the head clerk: this is not a clerking position. It is a position for someone to administrate the other clerks. Kelly is also the one who has been opening and closing cases. She was chosen basically because she volunteered for the role. This way (having a former Arbitrator as Head Clerk) allows for consistency as to who has access to the mailing list, and who is allowed to comment on cases. It is also very important to have someone who understands the ArbCom process from the inside to administrate its management (eek, that phrase shows what a bureaucracy we can be...) I hope this answers your questions. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I'm still not clear about this part: "This way (having a former Arbitrator as Head Clerk) allows for consistency as to who has access to the mailing list, and who is allowed to comment on cases." Anyone who needed list access could have been given it. Anyone who wants to comment on a case is currently allowed to and doesn't need list access to do that. And if there's too much work for the arbcom, more arbitrators could have been chosen. I think one of the concerns people have is that, if clerks really were needed, there was no need to choose them from among people who had just lost an election. This says to the community that what ordinary editors think doesn't matter, and it means the arbcom will have less credibility now, which is a pity, because it's a new committee and it could have been a fresh start. You talked about reviewing the situation in a few months, but I think the damage will have been done by then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We do recognise this, and it's clearly a valid point. While a fresh start is good, it's also necessary at the same time to have some consistency. I don't think I explained the situation with the Head Clerk very well. The point about the mailing list is really incidental. The main point is that a member of the office knows how the ArbCom procedure works. As to the point of several of the clerks having recently not been elected in the ArbCom elections, that is not really fair. We chose them because they were the best on offer. I expect we will appoint more in due course. It is like saying that, because someone failed in an election to become a member of parliament, we aren't going to approve them to work in the civil service, even if they're a good candidate. If you take it as read that the ArbCom is still supervising its clerks (and it would be negligent not to) I think you will see why we appointed these people. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, do you think that the clerks will change frequently? That would alleviate any concerns I have, more or less.--Sean Black|Talk 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you'll see us removing clerks for removal's own sake! However, clerks that are not being useful will be removed, and I fully expect to see numerous other users become clerks in the future. I know Geni is predicting great calamaties of burnout. In answer to your question, yes, I do expect to see a fair amount of change in who the clerks office is made up of. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't meant to suggest just throwing them out back for the hell of it :). But that makes sense- I can only imagine that it would be a short term, which makes it feel less like appointing a sub-committee, and more like, you know, clerks.--Sean Black|Talk 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the major concern that people have is that particular editors, who were disapproved for a role that has influence in the arbcom, have nevertheless been appointed to have influence on the arbcom. What alarms me above all is the evidence summarising. Yes, the evidence can be a mangled heap of scrap, but it's the evidence as presented by the person who is on trial. Also, I don't believe that editors that we expressed our lack of support for should secretly have any input into punishments. If Snowspinner thinks editor X should be banned for the rest of his natural life, I think he should be saying it on the talkpage, just like anyone else. I understand the desire for the arbcom's deliberations to be secret. Judges in those places that try by judge don't deliberate in public. But submissions made to them are public. It's very worrying that users who we don't trust to be arbitrators are given a position of influence by the back door. Grace Note 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that, even if I don't particularly agree with it. Really, we should trust the ArbCom that was elected by the community to be responsible and not let them be influenced or however by the clerks. WP:AFG and all that.--Sean Black|Talk 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all statements should be public. The Committee is currently discussing this very matter on its mailing list. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems a little comical to use a private mailing list for the purposes of discussing how to keep things public. Really though, I do appreciate seeing the views of yourself, Theresa and the other Arbs who have commented publicly on these issues. Dragons flight 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You elected us. You didn't expect us to be SANE and LOGICAL, did you? Really? You did??? Whoa! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll have to discuss this private mailing list in a public IRC channel.--Sean Black|Talk 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to address various people's concerns.... I have also agreed that the summaries should be public (and indeed, as simple, strictly factual, and neutral as possible—which is not something that parties often do in their own presentations). I have seen evidence summaries by others be useful and I should hope I wouldn't be unduly swayed by them if they're not backed up by evidence. I regard the summaries as helpful but non-essential, and of course anyone outside the clerk's office is also welcome to present them. As for Geogre's concern that no one should—well, people do, already, on the workshop pages, or they send their opinions in email. We give them the weight that they're worth, I hope.

As for Kelly's access to the mailing list, she would, as any other former arbitrator, have access anyhow, and would, as former arbs do, be offering advice and opinions. (It's also my opinion that whatever community relations skills she may have, she's good at analyzing cases.) No one else has read access, and any other editor can send a message to the list in private by emailing an arbitrator and asking that it be passed on. I expect the position of clerk if anything to have them under more scrutiny rather than less—as when some people have done similar things independently, and no one made a fuss about it. Write access also is good: it's not getting a special ear, it's getting reminders and questions regarding open cases out to everyone in a timely manner. ("Hey, you voted on all of these remedies but one, go look at this again so we can close" or "hey, editor X has a question/new piece of evidence no one has looked at and he thinks it will affect the decision.")

I don't see it as a serious problem that the clerks chosen were not approved as arbitrators, as they're not arbitrating. If the AC makes a bad decision by relying on something inappropriate a clerk has done, it's our fault. Call us on it, please. And if the clerkship bit in general turns out not to work so well, then, oh well, experiment failed, it was worth a shot. I think it's worth trying, if only because opening, closing, notifying, and keeping track of what needs to be voted on by whom is a pain, not a judgment-critical process, and if someone else wants to do that so much the better. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of this makes sense, but the point remains that choosing people who had just been so roundly rejected was obviously going to be controversial, and that it was done smacks of disrespect to the community. The community may repay that with disrespect in return, and there you have a bad situation that no clerk's position is worth, in my view. It would have made more sense to choose the clerks from among the people who just missed out on getting elected (assuming they wanted to do it). Regarding the summaries, the whole point of having them written is, presumably, so that arbitrators don't have to wade through all the evidence. Therefore, the summaries will be relied upon. The commmittee can't have it both ways: on the one hand, clerks are going to write summaries which will helpfully save the committee time, but on the other, don't worry, because the committee will independently read the evidence themselves anyway, so they can judge which summaries to take seriously. Something is making no sense here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhpas the issue is why the clerks are absolutley necessary, then? I can see that, I'm not sure they're terribly usefull myself. But I'm not an Arbitrater, so I really can't say.--Sean Black|Talk 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to find your way around a strange country when you have a sketch map in front of you. That is how I intend to treat the clerks' summaries. The post was advertised, so anyone who wanted to have the post could have applied. Indeed, anyone can still apply, and I fully encourage them to. Sam Korn <sup>(smoddy) 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Twice people have made gambling analogies. Let me reiterate my own: why on earth place these stakes on the table? What on earth is worth the amount of harm a loss will make? What is the benefit adherent to Tony or Snowspinner or Kelly, or for that matter me or SlimVirgin or anyone else, summarizing evidence, compared to arming a disgruntled editor with evidence that Person X prejudiced the case and used personal associations to get her/his way? This is too dangerous, too high a stake, with no winnings for being right. Geogre 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean, the head clerkship was not advertised, yet the head clerk gets to vet all other applicants, and the particular person chosen as head clerk is highly controversial. This is in large measure where the problem lies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, once the Committee had decided that the Head Clerk was to be a former Arbitrator, it was advertised to all eligable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, the head clerk is responsible for vetting applicants, so the application process is flawed from the get-go, because the head clerk position was not advertised and the person who was given it (for reasons no one has explained) is regarded, rightly or wrongly, with a great deal of ill will. The way this is being done is inherently problematic for these reasons. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is slightly problematic. I'm not sure what solution there is to that, though- what other method could be used to choose the head clerk?--Sean Black|Talk 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Convince someone else to do it, convince arbcom to replace Kelly/convince her to quit. Or just cope. There is a tiny tiny pool of avaiable former arbs and most ran away screaming as I recall--Tznkai 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be a former arbitrator. That thinking is the big flaw in the system. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thats a diffrent issue then, unless you're accusing the ArbCom of a conspiracy to select requirements so only Kelly would get the job. Who the Head clerk is, is a seperate issue from the requirements for clerkship. Honestly, I like havign a forber arbitrator around The experiance they provide is going to be very useful.--Tznkai 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's mostly accurate. However, Kelly made a recommendation, and the appointment was left to the committee. I don't really see Kelly's role as "vetting". As I say, the head clerk position was offered to all who were eligible. Kelly accepted. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the perception is that "eligibility" was defined to allow a very small group of people (for all practical purposes, a group consisting of one) to be "eligible." All we can do as ordinary editors is to ask that the committee take people's concerns about it seriously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I take this very seriously. It is quarter to one in the morning, and I'm still replying here! I do understand why you think it not necessary to have a former arbitrator as a clerk. However, I hope you can also see why the Committee chose to take this route. We are trying to be as open as possible about this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I can see that you personally take it seriously, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond, especially given how late it is for you. I wonder if the committee would consider making public the entire decision-making process, and in particular how it was decided that only former arbitrators could become head clerk, and why a head clerk was needed in the first place. The perception is that this was some kind of done deal from the start. If the process could be laid bare, I think that might help to clear up some concerns. If in addition, the plan for clerks to summarize evidence could be abandoned, I think there would be few, if any, concerns remaining. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how forcing the logic about the requirement for a (non-running-away-screaming) arbiter as Clerk Chair is, or anything about done deals, etc; I've expressed my opinion elsewhere that this whole business seems to me to be an essentially sound idea, that could have been handled with better timing, transparency and general presentation. But it does occur to me that Jimmy Wales could have done his bit here, by not unnecessarily contracting the available supply of ex-arbiters. Not much he could have done about the running-away-screaming part, admittedly. Alai 09:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't say anything about Kelly, nor do I think she's a bad clerk. I'm just saying that some people are concerned with how the head clerk gets the job, is all.--Sean Black|Talk 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, had we appointed a non-former-arbitrator as head clerk, we'd now be discussing whether he should have read/write access to arbcom-l. There must be coordination between the arbitrators and the clerks, although in general the clerks do not need, and should not have, access to the confidential deliberations of the arbitrators. A former arbitrator is well placed for the task. I don't blame other former arbitrators for running away screaming, for it involves all the hard work and drudgery of being an arbitrator without the right to have a vote in the final decision. And would anybody have been so much happier if one of the other former arbitrators, say David Gerard or Ambi, had taken the position? Few former arbitrators leave the post without having accrued some degree of notoriety. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do all former arbitrators retain their rights to arbcom-l? It seems like it would be standard process for former members to be removed from the list. Certainly if there is to be a Clerks office, and there is going to be a head clerk, it does make some sense to have a former arbitrator in the position. It is certainly a valid concern to note the timing and lack of transparency - a head clerk appointed after an abortive bid for arbcom, and within days, is rather unseemly. If the clerks in general should not have access to the confidential deliberations, but the head clerk does, it might put the head clerk into a uniquely difficult position. This person would need to be especially skilled at the arbitrator and clerk duties to be truly effective, and should also be a member of the community held in the highest regard to help avoid even the appearance of bias. --Dschor 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, all former arbitrators can read an advise on the arbcom mailing list. This is to provide continuity and let the present arbs benefit from their experience. I see no problem with that. It seems to me that most users don't have a problem with clerkhood per se, but with (1) the way clerks are chosen, or (2) individual clerks (indeed, it seems the ArbCom has underestimated the sheer controversiality of certain users). Hence, if community had some say in clerk appointments (by which I emphatically don't mean a vote), this problem would be solved and this forest fire ended. Clerking shouldn't be a big deal, but apparently some people are really not trusted (see proposal at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Point of process). Radiant_>|< 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestions: 1) Abandon the idea of clerks summarizing evidence, in public or private; 2) tell parties that they must limit their initial statements to 500 words and their evidence to 1,000 words (or whatever) and that any text after that will be deleted; 3) draw up a page offering advice on how to submit a well-written case; 4) if clerks must be chosen for administrative work, start by inviting applications from the pool of candidates who gained over 50 per cent in the election before opening it up to anyone else; 5) there's no need for a head clerk, just as there's no need for a head arbitrator or head admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Clerks III: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the office

I think there's a lot of focus on the fact that three of the clerks got, in an arbitration committee election, less than 50% approval for the position of arbitrator. I'd like to point out that six clerks were chosen solely from about a score of people who volunteered. Four of them happened to have stood as candidates for arbitrator, and (as most candidates did) failed to get community approval. One of them is an experienced arbitrator, two of them are experienced in arbitration work from the other side, having completed work on important cases in the recent past in which a large proportion of the final decision issued by the Committee was actually drafted by them. Whatever personal opinion you may have of them, they're eminently qualified and respected Wikipedians. And they volunteered. There may of course be more qualified people who failed to volunteer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, can you say which decisions were drafted by the clerks you mentioned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To my personal recollection, I drafted, on the workshop page, over half of what became the findings of fact and one of the two remedies in the final decision of the Webcomics case. IOthers drew up their own proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies, and some of those were also adopted (the second remedy was drafted by Snowspinner and accepted with an alteration proposed by Aaron Brenneman and supported by me). This is the purpose for which the workshop pages are intended. All proposals on the workshop page were public and subject to comment by arbitrators, participants and others. The amount of scrutiny on that case was exceptionally high and the arbitrators had the opportunity to take into account the opinions of all who commented on the case--and there was a lot of comment. And to answer the question you didn't ask, all my contributions on the case were public. I did not email any of the arbitrators individually or as a group. I cannot speak for the other participants. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about personalities it is about summaries being drafted by anyone not an arbitrator. If the workshop system works well, leave it alone. One more time: what, exactly, is the grave need that is satisfied by having clerks make summaries? What hole is there at present that this will spackle over? Is this the only possible solution? Given that the harm done by this going wrong is going to be absolutely horrible, I'd say this would have to be the only possible answer to a crippling need to be worth considering, and that's before we start asking about Tony (currently in a conflict, below, with 4 other admins), Snowspinner (in numerous conflicts and just below making what looks like a personal attack), and Kelly (with whom I have no experience of conflict but who seems to have drawn a great deal of discontent). It isn't three unknowns, here. But, again, let's get away from personalities: what is the justification for this particular function to this particular job? Geogre 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did I miss "Clerks 2: The Revenge"? Darn shame.--Sean Black (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection to public summaries by clerks, geogre. Anyone can make a summary of evidence. On Webcomics workshop a lot of the proposed findings of fact were in effect summaries of evidence, and not one of them was prepared by a clerk. If a clerk or anyone else produces a summary and someone has an objection to it, then he can post his contrary evidence on the evidence page and his alternative summary in the workshop page. Could you explain what the substantive objection is here? Should the findings of fact that I proposed in webcomics have been rejected automatically where they amounted to digests of evidence? Were I to have produced the same digests while wearing the hat (they promised us all hats) of a clerk, should the proposals then have been rejected, but not when I made them as a participant? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And, Tony, can you explain what advantage there is to a title for an official summarizer of conflicts? Can you explain what advantage there will be to your being able to say that you are an official finder of fact, instead of just another person with an opinion? Further, you may recall that I did, indeed, reject your findings of fact because you were a litigant, not an observer, and you even signed yourself as a party of the dispute when you claimed to be summarizing. You may see the eventual findings as being yours, but I wholeheartedly disagree. They were, in fact, not your wordings nor your ideas, and they sure didn't match the ArbCom case that Phil brought. But, again, what advantage is there to an official summarizer of disputes? What procedural check was there that the people be individuals that the community will trust? Geogre 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an eventual answer to my questions, but I'll address yours int he meantime.because I know the answers and they're probably of more general interest than your answers to mine.

There is no advantage to me in this that I can see. I put myself forward as arbitrator, knowing that it would involve more work than any sane person would accept, out of a sense of responsibility to the encyclopedia. I put myself forward as clerk out of the same sense of responsibility. There was no question in my mind that I should do a job of which I have been proven capable.

You personally may well have rejected my findings, but the arbitration committee did not. You say "They were, in fact, not your wordings nor your ideas." This is easily demonstrated to be false: Rather than give chapter and verse, I'll give two of the most obvious examples.

• Finding of fact 1 in the arbitration final ruling, which I will refer to as "X's edits to deletion policy" is word for word my proposed finding of fact 1.2, "X edits deletion policy" with the addition of two sentences, one referring to the history of the section edited by X and the other describing a subsequent edit.

• Remedy 1, "X admonished" is word-for-word my proposed remedy 3 "X admonished to seek consensus on policy". The whole thing was adopted. This remedy followed from the finding of fact above.

But I'm not claiming to be a ventriloquist able to operate the Committee as my own mouthpiece. What I'm saying (going way back to the start of this subsection) is that I'm a reasonable draftsman and I know what kind of material the arbitrators are looking for. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• However, Tony, you should realize that it is reasonable to expect your recusal from any case involving that specific person X you just mentioned. I am not saying that you have a conflict of interest, but because you frequently appear to be in a quarrel with that specific person X it can far too easily be perceived as a conflict of interest. Radiant_>|< 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There would be a gross conflict of interest were I to act as a clerk involving that person. In the case I have cited, I had joined the case as a participant and contributed evidence on my own account against him; there could be no credible claim of impartiality in a subsequent case. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks Announcement by the arbcom

I'm speaking on behalf of the whole AC when I say this:

The Arbitrators have agreed that under normal circumstances, clerk evidence summaries should be public. They will be placed at the top of the proposed decision page of the cases. Clerks will not post evidence summaries to the private arbitration mailing list unless specifically asked to do so by the AC. (This will only happen in exceptional circumstances) We would like to point out that anyone is free to email an arbitrator privately about any matter. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case.

I'm back talking as myself here:

I know that this announcement will not satisfy everyone's fears but I hope that this will make everyone feel at least a little better about the AC and the clerks office. We do listen to peoples worries and we do do our best to take them on board. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please direct discussion and commentary here Raul654 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An Admin Announcment About AN/I

Can everyone please follow Raul's link about where to discuss this? This is not and never has been an issue that requires administrator action, the discussion should be there and not here.

We now return you to your normal programming...... --Wgfinley 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll place a copy of the above discussion (starting with Ril's complaint) in the archive of Wikipedia talk:Clerks. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master and article titles

On January 16th, User:Zen-master was banned from discussions involving article titles. Well he immediately defied the ban and was blocked for 24 hours. Fast forward 12 days. On the 28th and 29th, he edited Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. User:Carbonite just blocked him for 48 hours. This is literally his 10th or 11th block. Am I the only one who thinks it's time to ask the arbcom to reopen his arbcom case or to open a new one? I mean, this is beyond ridiculous. Probation has failed in this case. Period. I brought it up on RfAr a few weeks ago but didn't get anything from the arbcom. I think it's time to try again. I, for one, am tired of going through this with him over and over and over and over again. He hasn't learned. He's not going to learn. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

48 hours for a second violation of parole, with implicit further violations in the fact that he has started the whole argument running again, seems very lenient. The guy is clearly intent on continuing to ask the same question repeatedly until he gets the answer he wants. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should simply double the block time for each subsequent offence, and while the present ban on article titles has a duration of one month, it apparently makes sense to increase that. Someone knowledgeable about the fields (e.g. AIDS) should review Zenny's contribs in mainspace to see if he's doing something useful as well. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the request for a long term ban on zen. They want evidence. Give evidence. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

I would like this userpage to be deleted. It is pushing a POV, and is factually inaccurate in order to push that POV. The MfD I started was removed by User:Tony Sidaway, who suggested I discuss it on the user's talk page first, and then go to Deletion Review. I did, and while edits have been made, the incorrect material is still there. Futhermore, apparently DRV was not where I was supposed to go.

The reason the material is on KJV's userpage in the first place is because much of it was not allowed to be put on List of Freemasons. There was either a) no reputable verification (many of his original cites were from evangelical Christian, anti-Masonic, or conspiracy theory sites); b) there was no way to come to a consensus (there was as much evidence against membership as there was for it, i.e. Thomas Jefferson); or c) it was simply wrong (most notably, Bush and Cheney are not Masons, Skull and Bones is not a Masonic organization, and Charles Taze Russell wasn't a Mason either). The full list of inccuracies is here.

KJV's userpage clearly violates the userpage policy, and should be removed. MSJapan 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's on WP:DRV now. I think that (1) Tony shouldn't have pulled this unilateral stunt, but (2) MFD would likely have resulted in keeping the article (5d, 4k at time of "closure") so the point is kind of moot. Radiant_>|< 17:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant! should do his homework. The MD was closed after discussion on WP:AN on 26th and 27th January, and the unanimous feeling was that this was a content dispute pursued inappropriately. Please, Radiant!, assume good faith ir at least do some research before making accusations of this kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ah yes, you mean that issue that five people talked about, one of which doesn't have an opinion and one of which claims this a violation of WP:UP, and in which nobody mentioned closing the MFD discussion. Hardly a "unanimous feeling" for your unilateral closing of the discussion a few days earlier. Radiant_>|< 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty conclusive. This is how it looked when I closed the discussion. I'd appreciate it if you dropped your defensive tone and admitted that you failed to read my close message where I referred to the discussion, and as a consequence of your carelessness and a failure to assume good faith you made the false and baseless accusation, in two forums, that I had closed the MD unilaterally. We may certainly have a legitimate disagreement on whether there existed unanimity, but you can hardly deny that a discussion took place and that my move was not without strong support from other senior administraors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Psychim62's remark ("No, it's been listed on MfD as a breach of Wikipedia:User page") is in agreement with listing it for deletion. Therefore your claim that this was "unanimous feeling" is clearly and obviously false, because there was a dissenter. In other words, it is obvious that you failed to read the debate, and as a consequence of your carelessness and a failure to assume good faith you made the false and baseless accusation that people are engaging in "malicious slander campaigns". I do think you owe some people an apology for that particular wrong conclusion. Radiant_>|< 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made my point. I'll leave it there before it becomes too absurd. I do hope that Radiant's use of quotes is intended as hyperbole, for those words are his, not mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're quite right, this is absurd. Your words were "deliberately to smear a fellow administrator". Similarly strong words; I was mixing it up with remarks on the "rabble-rousing miscreants" who commented on Kelly's election talk page after the election vote, and against whom you called for an arbitration case in a similar overreaction. Hyperbole much? Radiant_>|< 07:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do give over, Radiant. This isn't Usenet and I'm not interested in a flame war. An apology would have been nice, though. I called for an arbitration case against a rabble? I should coco! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you're the one who makes the jump from a mere difference in opinion to "deliberate smearing", nor is this the first time that you react viciously to such things. If you don't want flame wars, don't start flaming people, it's that easy. Do you seriously believe that any of the four remarks at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kelly Martin merit arbitration, because that's what your earlier remarks implied. Radiant_>|< 15:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, recall that this particular silly spat started with you flaming me (your first comment in this section) because of your erroneous assumption that I had taken unwarranted and unilateral action. And I reiterate that any call for arbitration by me on the subject of rabble rousers is, to the best of my knowledge, a figment of your imagination. Just stop making stuff up in ever more desperate and baseless personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Swami Sathvaatsanjaatha Jnaanaaya Namah (talk · contribs). Same MO. First post is to respond to a post by a previous sockpuppet on another user's talk page. Then immediately jumps into Talk:Terrorism and starts complaining. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Carbonite. --Deathphoenix 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsurpisingly, the technical evidence confirms that this is another Stark sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Archangel White Tiger

Archangel White Tiger (talk · contribs) left a rather vicious homophobic personal attack on User talk:Ta bu shi da yu. [85] *Dan T.* 19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Physchim62 (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely, mainly over concerns about threats of violence by this editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

Could a non-involved admin take a look at this template and its talk page and take whatever action they feel appropriate? Physchim62 (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If the conclusion of German wikipedia says that the assertion in the template is incorrect, then it is. Can someone who can read German confirm that? Secretlondon 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useless that a not-admin like me confirms that. But let me say that the German users warning for the use and now voting for deletion are expert users in the German branch (some of them being admins) and able to give all legal information you need . --Historiograf 20:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an idiotic template that should be got rid of sooner than later. Unlike works of the US government, which are considered PD, works of the German government are copyrighted as a rule. There is a very narrow exception in § 5 UrhG on laws and the like promulgated by the government or its agencies. Could a friendly admin speedy-delete the template because it's stupid if you try and out-vote the law. Pilatus 21:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: Template has been deleted by User:MarkSweep. Good call, mis-interpretation of the law is one of the few cases where out-of-process deletion is warranted. Hope there won't be a revert war around it. Pilatus 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion on Template talk:GermanGov and the links to the discussion on de, I've concluded that this template should not be used at all. According to the image use policy on de, works of the German government are generally protected, with narrow exceptions for official announcements, laws, court orders, and a few other things that are published in the official register of the government. Works created by German government employees acting in official capacity are in fact protected by copyright, unlike the works of the US federal government.

The nomination of this template on WP:TFD was rather pointless: it's an exercise in futility to try to decide what is ultimately a legal issue by discussion (let alone a vote, which TFD is not). Note that by deleting this template I'm not trying to interpret German law or to determine how it applies to Wikipedia: If there are any legal questions, they should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation. The reason I deleted this template is that there is clear and overwhelming evidence that we cannot use the images the template was designed to cover, at least not under the rationale put forth on this template. We have to err on the side of caution here. The images previously tagged as {{GermanGov}} should be reviewed to see if they can be used under some other rationale. For historical images that are hard or essentially impossible to replace, fair use may apply. For others, such as Image:Eastern European hedgehog.jpg, we may need to find free replacements or delete them. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

While I can not speak to German law, I am quite certain that Germany is stricter in allowance for the use of government-created images than is the United States. Discretion is the better part of valor, where Wikipedia can be put at risk before the intellectual property laws of another government. bd2412 T 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:TFD

The deletion debate on {{GermanGov}} was closed as delete at 23:03 UTC 2006-01-29 by Pilatus (talk · contribs). The template was nominated at 19:39 UTC 2006-01-29 by Historiograf (talk · contribs). Could an independant admin please review the decision to close the debate. Physchim62 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be a simple case of legal concerns being more important than consensus. Radiant_>|< 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The template has been the subject of low-intensity edit-warring for about a month: the TfD was closed after less than five hours. I believe that a consensus is possible on this issue, but it will take a little more time to find it. Could a non-involved admin please reopen the debate? Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It came up yesterday - the template is incorrect and deletion is correct. Secretlondon 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• TFD can't really decide on legal issues. What I generally do for such things is drop a line on copyright problems. But really if it's legally sound then the TFD nomination is pointless (e.g. speedy keep) and if it's legally wrong then the TFD debate is pointless (e.g. speedy delete). Radiant_>|< 20:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The template is wrong, at least for the majority (if not all) of the images that use it. There is a dispute as to what the correct situation is, which is being resolved. The opinions of those who have been reverting the template are not in accordance with policy on German Wikipedia, for what that matters. Although I would usually welcome an overly cautious approach to image copyright, I feel that this is going too far. EN wikipedia has images which have been tagged in good faith with this tag, we must decide what needs doing with them: such a process needs more attention than has been given by those involved in the template deletion or on the template talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I replaced this template with {{PUI}} precisely because it is still needed during cleanup. What needs to happen now is for everyon to go back and review the images that were tagged as {{GermanGov}} to decide whether they can be used under some other rationale. I think in most cases this will be pretty easy: the vast majority of them are historical images that cannot be recreated or easily replaced. They should probably all be tagged as {{Non-free fair use in}}. The best way forward in a situation like this is to provide as much information as possible about each image: who is the original photographer? who is the copyright holder? what collection or web site was the image taken from? what are the conditions for redistribution? Those are the things that will help us determine if and how we can use the images here. Simply slapping a tag on an image wtihout providing further information is generally not a good solution, as the present situation shows: if the rationale behind the tag is questioned, we have to review all the information we have about the image, and if that information is missing, the job will be that much harder. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are under an obligation to inform every individual uploader of what you have done. One of the images Image:Surreydocks1941.jpg was actually published in late 1940 in England rather than Germany, though not in compliance with UK copyright law (as dropping out of planes does not count as distribution to copyright libraries); it contained false source information when published (the underlying photograph was taken in 1938 or before, not as claimed on 9 September 1940). --Henrygb 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just listed all images in Category:German government images at WP:CP. They all need examining. Historical images can probably be justified as "fair use", the rest may need to be deleted. Pilatus 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you listed them at WP:PUI. Please be careful about such things when you are messing with image copyright tags. Physchim62 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MarkSweep. We have to review the pictures now, further discussion on the template is not needed --Historiograf 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The evil sociopath, or, DreamGuy: time to put a stop to smear campaign

Comment: Please see #Elonka mess below. Having made the indefinite block, the mess is now mine as well to help clean up ... I'm increasingly of the opinion this is a clusterfuck rather than a symptom of deepmalice on the part of either Elonka or DreamGuy - David Gerard 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; I've tried to keep this as short as possible. In my opinion it's time to block User:Elonka for her ongoing smear campaign against DreamGuy, as she has been impervious to all suggestions that she stop voluntarily, [86], [87] [88]; see especially this kindly and exemplary message from Friday. This started with a not-very-remarkable AFD conflict, but seems to have taken on a life of its own, with Elonka (contribs) spending most of her wikitime on it (while DreamGuy for his part continues to edit the encyclopedia). As Hipocrite puts it, "she's gone to every admin and problem user that DreamGuy has interacted with forever"[89], and instead of keeping her dirt page User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute discreetly in her space, as I have advised, she's spamming more and more far-fetched usertalk pages with invitations to contribute. She claims that DG "has engaged in a longterm pattern of deceptive behavior", has "sociopathic tendencies" (!) [90], "has a demonstrated pattern of abusive behavior... That's why I am building this case... as long as he refuses to apologize, I will continue to build the case."[91] See also this unusually frank remark for light on her recent storm of posts on DG's page, which she otherwise insists was intended as "good-faith dispute resolution". Dip into Elonka's contribs at random, then into DG's: the visual created is of one person pounding on another's door day and night and yelling "Come down and LEAVE ME ALONE!" while the target occasionally shouts "Go away!" from an upper window.

Elonka's attack page

Please note especially the remarkable punishments for DreamGuy that Elonka's attack page suggests here, and her suggested apology from DreamGuy. The talkpage is of interest for Elonka's polite thanks for, and apparent failure to take in, the comments she gets. Please nobody delete this attack page just yet. Even though it's in userspace, Elonka has done everything possible to publicize it, and it may be needed as evidence if this goes to an RFAR (but I'm hoping a forceful community reaction now will show her the light and save us drawing up one of those).

Bandwagon: Castanea dentata

Very recently, Castanea dentata, who has been having a disagreement with DG over templates, has joined in dialogue with Elonka, as well as contributed to her "DreamGuy dispute" subpage: "You should know that this user is probably several users and I suspect a couple of admins all rolled into one... formatted exactly as another user who also displays similar sociopathic behavior. One award is from Haukur Þorgeirsson who also is associated with one Dieter Bachman and one Padraig somethingorother each of whom frequent many of the same pages as DreamGuy (myths). I am sure there are many others." [92] "You are being too nice... You and I cannot begin to understand people like this. I have experienced people like this in real life, and it has left me thoroughly convinced that evil is a very real force... I'd bet that Bishonen is also him." [93] See also CD's frank proposal to Elonka of tag-reverting for the purpose of helping the "case" against DG: "DreamGuy has just vandalized the following page ... If you revert it, then it will either fix the page or force him to revert it a fourth time. It will also induce him to blank more templates, as he threatens in the history, which will help you immensely". [94] (my italics). Elonka took this advice and reverted the template 8 minutes later. [95] "DreamGuy is out of control. Eventually, DreamGuy and his other identities will cause Wikipedia to be sued and shut down." [96]

Request for review

I don't think any wikipedian needs to put up with this persecution, let alone a constructive and useful contributor like DreamGuy (even if he is of less than perfect tact). Since I've spoken to Elonka [97] and unpleasantness has ensued, [98] [99] [100], while CD for her/his part "bets" I'm DG's sockpuppet, I will not do any blocking myself, but I would appreciate a review by an (or at least one) uninvolved admin. Note that CD's sockpuppet accusations have, I suppose, "involved", besides myself, Haukurth and, at quite a distance, "one Dieter Bachman" (!), but hopefully CD won't have mentioned all of us before somebody reviews her/him. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Wow. The idea that I am DG's sockpuppet kind of blows my mind considering some of the rows we've had in the past :) But, yeah, best someone else reviews this. My opinion of DreamGuy is that he is blunt and abrasive but fundamentally a good editor, here to improve and protect the encyclopedia. - Haukur 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Same here. That seems to be implied by Castanea dentata's quoted comments provided above, so I posted a query to Castanea dentata's talk page in seeking clarification of what appears to be the accusation you mention here. I have never had a serious problem with Dreamguy's edits in my own work here, so this entire row betwixt him and Elonka was a bit of a surprise. ::shrug:: Then again, we rarely come across each other in our editing habits. I really cannot imagine how someone could detect any discernable pattern that would link you, Haukur, Dieter, myself, and Dreamguy as being one person considering what our contrib lists are like, interests, language patterns... it makes no sense at all to do so.

- P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen DreamGuy make an edit in article-space that wasn't good for the encyclopedia. Instead of running away from conflicted articles and leaving them to be someone else's problem, he acts as that someone else and tackles problems head-on. Being in the eye of the storm so much may have given him a jaded attitude toward WP:CIVIL, but he doesn't deserve the campaign of harrassment against him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Elonka indefinitely for sustained personal attacks and clearly not being here to write an encyclopedia. I did an IP check to see if they were one of our previous interests, and the IPs are all over the place - I'm wondering if it isn't some sort of role account. (Other checkers with time on their hands may care to look.) - David Gerard 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can confirm what this means: "they were one of our previous interests, and the IPs are all over the place". Does it a) She had multiple IP addys or b) They Ips that took part in the debate are in different locations/different. Thanks. Englishrose 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect some kind of proxy network, possibly a botnet, if the IPs are like that. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, they all turn out to be the same ISP with a wide selection of IP ranges. The page linked from her site seems to verify that she's who she says she is - David Gerard 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fundamentally a good editor, here to improve and protect the encyclopedia". As a person who's been subject to the similar levels of abuse that Elonka has, I actually believe that deep down he is. However he can be counter-productive, in order to achieve to what he thinks is best he's all to happy to throw personal insults and it's no surprise to me that Elonka is going to try and file for a RFC. She went through the steps detailed at the dispute resolution, every post she made was reverted. I advised her to give up because although I thought she was right to want an apology I didn’t think she’d get a resolution.

I can see clearly where Elonka is coming from by my own experiences. I don’t find it nice when I read accusations such as “Unfortunately the sockpuppets were ready this time and they have come back in force, led by Englishrose placing more likely hoaxed info to try to support the article” made against you when you know you’re not involved in sockpuppetry, have already been proven not to be a sockpuppet and haven’t knowingly issued hoaxed information. [101]. It’s not nice to be accused of lying. [[102]. That’s only an example of the abuse I’ve received from DreamGuy, Elonka has had similar and probably worse accusations made against her as she documents in her page, which I feel is the correct way to go about it rather than making repeated posts on DreamGuy’s talk page and getting nowhere like she was before. If I was well known and these accusations were branded publicly and not just inside Wikipedia, DreamGuy would be sued for slander and I’d make no hesitation in doing so. Yes Wikipedia is not real life but he should assume good faith. The ironic thing is that Elonka is reasonably notable outside wikipedia.

On one hand he stops people from pushing POV, protects a lot of articles and does a lot of good. On the other hand he can be rather rude to other editors and this can cause low morale amongst them, thus they are less inclined to positively participate in wikipedia and so forth. All Elonka wants it an apology, it’s not a big thing to ask. I can’t really be arsed getting so worked up over DreamGuy cause it’s the internet not a matter of life or death. What really worries me instead of condemning DreamGuy’s personal attacks people seem to praising them, which in a communal environment is very worrying. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with DreamGuy if he toned down his attitude a little.

However, Elonka shouldn’t get too worked up about this because it’s wikipedia not life or death.

Update: As I write this, Elonka’s been blocked indefinitely. I don’t want to stir the boat but that seems a bit dodgy. “clearly not being here to write an encyclopedia”, have you checked her contributions? From my brief glance it seems that before DreamGuy got her so worked up she seemed to be contributing to the enclapedia.

Do whatever you want to me for sticking up for Elonka. Make personal attacks, block me. Do whatever. It wouldn’t surprise me if you did. At the end of the day I’m speaking my mind. Without being too moralistic, it’s not right to stand by and watch people be persecuted for standing up for themselves when they’ve had wrong-doing done towards them. I’ll speak my mind and rest easy tonight.

Englishrose 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, you're everyone's sock-puppet! Seriously, looking through Elonka's contributions, she's obviously been doing some good stuff. Equally obviously, the Elonka-Dreamguy situation is very nasty and completely out of control. If blocking Elonka is the only way to end it then fair enough, but I'd be happier if Elonka agreed to stay away from DG in return for being unblocked. Mark¹ 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin, and can no-longer really be called neutral in this case, I will not comment on the above. However Elonka did request the following be posted here (originally posted on her talk page), and I thought it was only fair to do so. Petros471 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You thought wrong. Elonka is blocked. Blocked has got to mean something, right? It means she only gets to post on her own talkpage. Her talkpage is watched by the blocking admin and probably others. She can also e-mail the blocking admin, or any admin, or the Mailing list, to protest her block. This information will have appeared in the block message that came up when she tried to edit. Petros, what you're doing--acting as "mailman" for a blocked user to get to post in a discusssion--is inappropriate, and frowned on. (I'm sorry I have no link to a policy or guideline that says so--I've spent some time looking for one, without success, but I do know there is one. It's common sense, too.) I have removed the several posts from Elonka that you placed below. Here, instead, is a link to her talkpage, where the same posts are easily viewable, right at the bottom of the page. Nothing unfair about that, is there? Bishonen | talk 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

• Something on her talk page does raise a point. I would ask that reviewing admins make a distinction between actions of Elonka and those of Castanea. From reading your post even I got muddled to had made the accusations of sockpuppetry and who had made personal attacks. Castanea made accussations of suckpuppetry and personal attacks. NOT Elonka. So I hope this has been noted. Further more due to this: apart from attempting to file an RFC against DreamGuy and asking for an apology…I can’t see what Elonka has done wrong. Englishrose 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't anticipate this complaint. The quotes from and links to Castanea Dentata's posts are all in a separate section above. It's called "Bandwagon:Castanea Dentata". Here's a link to it. The quotes from and links to Elonka are in the other sections. I hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Inserting the comments of a third party (mine) within a section about Elonka was inappropriate. Englishrose is right to note that it was confusing and irrelevant. Second, this was her talk page not DreamGuy's. Third, her Talk page is filled with DreamGuy's accusations of "sockpuppetry" and personal attacks.

What I was said was this: "the fact that he throws around accusations of "sockpuppet" frequently to others is a dead give away."[103]

I also said this: "I think the language he employs on your talk pages to defend himself is inappropriate and rude."[104]

I also said this: "I don't know what this is about, but I have seen that DreamGuy can make flippant and opinionated remarks that would offend someone. As we sit alone at our computer keyboards, sometimes it is easy to forget that there are actually other people floating around and most of whom would be a pleasure to meet in person."[105]

Clearly, then I was replying to DreamGuy's abuse and accusations on Elonka's Talk page. I made no accusations to him myself. In fact I have posted nothing on his Talk pages. Elonka certainly has a right to receive comments on her own Talk page!

Please see below. Castanea dentata 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure Elonka has a right to "receive" posts on her page--how could she stop herself, anyway? It's you who had no right to post disgusting abuse there. Usertalk pages are part of Wikipedia, and the rules of civility apply to them. By "disgusting abuse", I'm not referring to your own selection of a few harmless sentences, but to things like those I quote in the section "Bandwagon:Castanea dentata" ("Confusing"? Oh, come on!) above. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Castanea dentata replies

Bishonen invited me to comment here.[106]

Elonka has a very legitimate case documenting a long campaign of harassment and verbal abuse by DreamGuy. Indeed she has documented such by him against herself and against several other users here as well.

1. Elonka is one of Wikipedia's most outstanding editors and an accomplished and several-times recognized figure in the United States.
2. Elonka's conduct has been more than above board and peerless.
3. All users have a very real right not to be subject to the F-word and other extreme abuse such as she has experienced and documented.
4. Such abuse and harassment far exceeds what Bishonen admits is a lack of "tact."
5. All users should feel free to blow the whistle as she has and not be punished.
6. Whistle-blowing is not harassment.
7. Documenting use of filthy language used by DreamGuy is not harassment.
8. Elonka has made no inappropriate comments directed at DreamGuy or Bishonen ever.
9. Use of third party comments (mine) posted to her for her and into her own personal Talk page alone is irrelevant and inappropriate.
10. Bishonen misrepresented facts made in plain sight: DreamGuy began a campaign of partial blanking of a hundred or so pages on Wikipedia immediately following my involvement as an observer - within 40 minutes. There was no prior dispute.[107]
11. Blocking users for blowing the whistle against harassment and filthy language is censorship.
12. Retaliation of users for whistle-blowing violates the spirit and expression of Wikipedia policy.
13. Retaliation for whistle-blowing is unethical.
14. Punishing Elonka tells all Wikipedians that they will be blocked if they object to abuse and filthy language, document it and complain.
15. Since Bishonen was already a subject of the whistle-blowing, he was already conflicted out from any further association with the matter.
16. All Elonka asked for was an apology.

• Castanea dentata 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nearly everything above is jsut completey wrong. I most certainly did not blank -- partial or otherwise -- a "hundred or so pages" or any page, and claims that Bishonene misrepresented it are false when CD is so blatantly lying is just outrageous. What he is completely mischaracterizing here is that I fixed a template that was ostensibly about Mesopotamian mythology but included inaccurate information and a lot of links that had nothing to do with Mesopotamian mythology at all, and it came up as part of my regular edits an articles on my watchlist -- someone linked to an article that contained grosly inaccurate info, and when I fixed it I saw the template was linking to it, and went to fix that and saw all the other problems. Elonka did not just ask for an apology, she asked for all records to be erased, apologies over things that never happened, a record of this apology across a whole string of articles, and other bizarre things. She got her apology now, copied and pasted just like she wanted, but she still is insisting upon making claims that simply are not accurate. To characterize Elonka's continual haraassment of me as "whistleblowing" is absolute nonsense. DreamGuy 00:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is a whistleblower

She documented a case of harassment including foul language. She sacrificed herself to improve Wikipedia! Come on guys, she is a role-model to all of us! Castanea dentata 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy's thoughts

Well, for what it's worth, my feeling now is that she's probably a real person... after all, she supposedly has an article here about her own accomplishements, but then if that's not her she should be gone for impersonation. But some of the people giving her advice I think were clearly socks of the people who hoaxed the original aladin article (where a sock check was already done on earlier participants and found a ton) and were hoping to use her and anyone else they could get to get at me for helping discover some of the deceptive info in the article. I think her behavior was over the top, but I think she did do some good edits, so if the whole IP thing is sorted out and she wants to give it a rest, I personally have no objection to allowing her back. Up to you guys how it goes though.

For what it's worth, I see she said she'd quit everything if I copied and pasted this:

"Elonka, please accept my apologies for my comments. My words were hasty, and my remarks uncivil. I made a mistaken assumption that you were not who you said you were, and I called you names and made accusations that were wholly without merit. I do apologize. DreamGuy 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)"

Though I'm not going to go put it on the six or more pages she wants it on, that's just silly.

Of course if the checks inadvertantly prove my original belief that she wasn't who she said she was, I guess that might explain why she was was so upset. I don't know. Anyway. If she is who she says, she's an extremely focused personality (code cracker) and maybe that's all this was here: inappropriate focus.

Thanks for the support. Never a dull moment here. DreamGuy 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, apparently neither my running the apology she asked for and trying to put in a good word for her nor the fact that several admins agree her behavior was simply unacceptable hasn't done anything to make her be more contrite or to try to work anything out. Elonka has decided to create a page on her website, http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/, to attack this encyclopedia and is making demands of us: "The attacks generated against me must be removed in order for this matter to be resolved. This is not negotiable." But unfortunately the "attacks" she refers to are just opinions of her bad behavior and not personal attacks at all. The fact that she was harassing me and stalking me is, to her, something that needs to be purged from any page where it was mentioned... OK, pretty much at this point it's clear that she's not really dealing with reality all that well. Indefinitely banned and she's making ultimatums and trying to make herself out to be someone so important that we have to cave: "I am not someone who is going to "go away". I am a public figure. I am a known online personality as well as a professional in a major online field." She's not at all acting in a manner that reflectts the seriousness of what she was doing, and at this point until she learns to be reasonable and want to work with people instead of making ridiculous demands she expects everyone else to follow I think it's probably best she just not come back. DreamGuy 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that an attack page? Obviously she's very hurt and has written a page about it. But nowhere in it does she attack Wikipedia or you personally.

Sometimes, I absolutely despair of people here. It hurts to be told you're a liar, a scammer and a sockpuppet. You hurt her, DreamGuy. You played rough. You're not exactly contrite about it either. Why not extend some love to the woman? Remove the comments that have upset her or let me know you agree and I will do it for you. Why not? Is it so essential to continue to hurt another person? Even if you think you were justified at the time in saying what you said, is it really right to keep on saying it?

And if it's not been done, can someone please unblock her? It's utterly wrong to block someone for wanting a wrong righted. Sandbox RFCs are not attack pages when editors who we know better use them, are they? Grace Note 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But when she responds to the "wrong" by acting extremely wrong herself and then lashing out at several people telling her she was doing wrong and than stalking to try to get the "wrong" fixed and making demands that are wholly beyond all common sense in order to in her mind "right" the "wrong", she's just plain wrong. I'm sorry you don't see that. People have disagreements, adults know how to let trivial things drop instead of obsessing about them. Out of all the problem editors I've run across, her sheer obsessiveness and inability to admit any wrong or deal with things rationally ranks probably up there in the top five. And the worst part is she is a mature adult, allegedly trying to work within the system, she should have known better. But when various admins told her she was not being realistic and being harassing, she accused them of not being impartial and being out to get her and that I had a huge number of admins unfairly protecting me (and, really, from the history here the opposite is probably more accurate). The facts are that I apologized and tried to put in a good word for her, which I did not have to do, and she's still making ultimatums when she now has clear evidence that what she was doing was unacceptable. Maybe she just needs to cool down and then she can apologize and set things right, but the way she's acting now certainly won't win her any support. DreamGuy 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, man, I just can't see her doing all this "wrong". I see a person that you hurt who wants you to undo the hurt you've done. You could easily do it but instead you are here, continuing the dispute. Her "demands" are that you remove the times you were nasty to her. If you think you weren't nasty to her, you need to have a rethink of the way you approach people in my view. Grace Note 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm not completely neutral here since I'm involved in the laser-focus on aladin (magician) and I disagree with DreamGuy's appraisal there, but he IS abrasive, and there IS a reasonable expectation that someone who is blocked will be upset about it. Especially when they are blocked by the very person they are in conflict with! Both sides could use some mediation/distancing, IMO; using an 'attack page' created after the block as evidence of disruption and proof of the need for an unwarranted indefinite block is dirty pool. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Especially when they are blocked by the very person they are in conflict with!" Oh for cryng out loud... Elonka was blocked by David Gerard. David Gerard and I are not the same person, not even close. And can we stop with the histrionics and denials and face up to the fact that Elonka was extremely out of line? DreamGuy 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, the 'DG' thing confused me. I wasn't meaning to say that you were the same as David Gerard, but can YOU countenance the idea that you might, possibly, have exacerbated the situation here? Just a bit? Your lily-white act is fairly aggravating even to those of us not involved in the matter. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's P.S.: What about Castanea dentata?

Er, so, is anybody reviewing Castanea dentata's personal attacks? This is a much smaller and briefer matter (please just see the quotes in my section "Bandwagon: Castanea Dentata" above), but the level of abuse is IMO quite amazing. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

IMO, User:Castanea dentata has been working hard at making the situation worse rather than calming anything. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Solipsist's view

For the record, I don't agree with User:Bishonen's characterisation summarised at the top of this discussion and I suspect blocking User:Elonka is a mistake. Unless the ipcheck gives good grounds for suspecting the account is actually a sockpuppet or other bad faith editor, it would probably be a good idea to lift the block. This discussion of harassment is overblown. My review of the early part of this dispute is that Elonka wandered into a dispute and got heavily critised for it. All subsequent actions appear to be those of an agrieved editor looking for an apology, trying to follow dispute resolution and in the face of stonewalling moving towards an RFC on DreamGuy. I advised Elonka to avoid an RFC, but to seek assistance if she really needed to bring one. The 'attack page' is really just a subpage to prepare for an RfC. The dispute is significantly complicated by the fact that DreamGuy (whom I regard to be good, if forthright editor) is a frequent target of sockpuppets and other editors of dubious track record - no doubt some of them will have also become involved. -- Solipsist 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. Did Elonka really get banned for preparing an RFC? Is it now a bannable offence to be sufficiently upset by an aggressive editor that you go to dispute resolution? I strongly urge admins to have another look at this. And is a thousand article edits really not being here to make an encyclopaedia?

I have to ask. Is it okay for an editor whose name we know to call someone a "liar" and a "scammer" -- personal attacks in anyone's language -- and repeatedly be uncivil to another editor but someone who isn't so familiar gets no latitude? Is that how it now is?Grace Note 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Did Elonka really get banned for preparing an RFC?"

...?!?

No, she most definitely did not get banned for preparing an RFC. Several people who disagreed with her even volunteered suggestions on how to write one, but she wasn't satisfied unless she was stalking and harassing me and a number of admins who tried to warn her that she was acting inappropriately. DreamGuy 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll forgive me for taking the view that that seems to be what David Gerard has actually blocked her for. Her "attack page" is simply a sandbox RfC. I don't see any sign that she's attacked you whatsoever. I can't see any "stalking" either but, you know, if you say shitty things to people, sometimes they're going to be hurt enough to keep asking you to apologise. All you need to do to make it right is remove six edits of yours. They're quite unpleasant and you can't be proud of them, so why not? It seems to me that and an apology on her talkpage should be sufficient. I'm sure in turn she would be happy to apologise for her part in the dispute. Why not? Grace Note 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll not forgive the view that that's what David Gerard blocked her for, as that was obviously not it, and it's clear from his comments and the facts outlined above. The things she wants removed as "personal attacks" against her are simply cases of me accurately pointing out what she wsa doing, and in the meantime she made tons of personal attacks herself and welcomed other editors to do so and encouraged them yet doesn't feel the need to remove all those. Furthermore if you can't see evidence of stalking you simply haven't read the above or simply do not wish to see it. It gets old seeing the same old people attacking elsewhere as part of Elonka's gang showing up to complain as if she -- and you -- did nothing wrong. DreamGuy 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison's view

I'm just coming to this, and I've tried to scan the links presented, but the whole thing leaves me puzzled. If I'm ignorant, maybe at least I'm unbiased. They're both productive editors. It looks like there is at least some hope that mediation might work. Couldn't Elonka and DreamGuy just avoid each other while mediation or arbitration takes it's course? Also, where are the personnal attacks that are the basis for Elonka's block? I don't say they're not there, just that I may have missed the really bad ones. Certainly there's a fair amount of incivility all around, but Elonka's doesn't jump out at me as especially bad. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is wikistalking DG. DG is avoiding her. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Those are really not the best examples. -- JJay 03:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The stalking example is. It's hard to show "Avoiding," except to assert that he's avoiding her. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have more than one example of this stalking? Shouldn't there be a whole pattern of stalking? Or at least maybe an example that dates prior to today?-- JJay 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about repeatedly posting on my talk page after told that I was ignoring her and would delete her comments unread and then encouraging others to do so as well for starters? How about actually reading the evidence given at the start of this section? How about just look at her contribution history? DreamGuy 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of your talk page incidents, but in my view that merely offset your attacks on Elonka. However, the tone of your response here is a good indication that you still take a dim view of WP:civil. -- JJay 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• So an alleged attack a long time back justifies constant harassment from that point on? I know that there is a group of people who got upset that the vote didn't go as they wanted, but the fact that you have to pile on and try to justify these clear examples of harassment as long as they are directed at someone you dislike shows a whole can of alphabet soup full of policies you take a dim view of. DreamGuy 05:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The vote? What vote? Was there a vote here today that I missed? I asked a question. I have neither piled on, nor sought to justify anything. That is frankly insulting. I was trying to figure out the situation. Is that so difficult to understand? -- JJay 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The vote at aladin that started all this. You were personally involved in several conflicts with me (not sure if you were in aladin or not, but somewhere between that and the stripper one and some others you were quite active, hostile and uncivil, and directly involved in trying for revenge against me for being a leading editor in accomplishing things you strongly opposed. Don't show up here and try to mislead people and pretend to be "insulted" or that I am being "uncivil" in pointing out that you are no angel by any stretch of the imagination. DreamGuy 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are involved in so many conflicts you have a hard time keeping them straight. I am also not interested in revenge. That you are a self-proclaimed "leading editor" is also most impressive, but to return to your accusation I have nowhere sought to justify anyone's action nor have I tried to mislead. You are very gifted for these types of attacks- thanks for letting me know that I am no "angel" and a "problem editor...spreading falsehoods" . Good luck in the future. -- JJay 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt Crypto's view

I think we should unblock Elonka. She was doing some useful encyclopedic editing before she tangled with DreamGuy, who was, in my view, somewhat rude and failed to assume good faith. Elonka's subsequent reaction was overenthusiastic, to say the least, and in particular, calling DreamGuy "sociopathic" and spamming his talk page is not really acceptable, but I don't see anything that merits an indefinite block. — Matt Crypto 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have undone the indefinate block and instead placed a 1 week block for violations of NPA. It seems to me that this user was making a good faith attempt to make an ironclad RFC/RFAr case on this page. I will not object however if the admin community gives persuasive evidence this was a bad idea.  ALKIVAR™ 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Alkivar here clearly should not have been involved with this in any way, as he was one of the people Elonka contacted who had a conflict with me in the past. He was trying to support Elonka's attacks on me because he had had a full page of personal photos up in his user space showing him with celebrities that wasted Wikipedia space for no reasons other than vanity that I put up for deletion and he has tangled with me on other issues afterwards. For him to have directly gotten involved and lessened the block shows extremely poor judgment and yet another indication of his using his admin powers for his own biased personal goals instead of the good of the project. He should have let other people do it instead of taking it upon himself. DreamGuy 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support it. I do not know what happens between her and DreamGuy (and to lazy to look through all the diffs), but I know her as the user who almost single-handily wrote a large and very important Raphael Kalinowski article. I have corrected a few minor points there and she was a breeze to work with. According to my experience she is certainly is an asset to Wikipedia and I would support shortening her block as far as it possible. abakharev 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's her first block so I'd say she's probably got the message by now, especially since DreamGuy is being quite gracious about it. I say we parole her, if she starts poking people again we can quickly give her another day off. Maybe Matt can unblock her and act as a mentor of sorts? - Haukur 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka seems to misunderstand our dispute resolution processes. Dispute resolution is simply that: to resolve current disputes. They are not set up as a means to get justice for previous harms and wrongs, to force people to apologise, or to purge comments from the Wikipedia. Most Wikipedians get into unpleasant disputes with people at times. Unless it's an egrerious and ongoing problem, the best approach is just to move on and get on with writing an encyclopedia. Elonka wants justice, but on Wikipedia, as in many areas of life, there often simply isn't justice, even for "public figures". To ardently press for justice for an old and dead dispute just ends up being disruptive and unproductive. — Matt Crypto 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't fuss about the change in the block. Reform is a bigger win than not. However, it would probably be good for her prospects of future Wikipedia involvement if she removed or altered the attack page on her personal site, which does nothing to give any positive impression of her or her actions - David Gerard 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no real interest in pursuing this matter further myself. However, I've exchanged email with both Elonka and Solipsist on this matter, including suggesting (based on my experience of how the Wikipedia social dynamic works) that removing or severely toning down the page linked above would be a very good idea to further a happier involvement with Wikipedia - David Gerard 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I had hoped some common sense would prevail. Let me clarify some events which I started to outline on DreamGuy's talk page, whilst this affair was rapidly escalating over here. This isn't an 'old history' dispute, it only started ten days ago.

• There was an AfD on aladin (magician). Its a messy AfD with some highly dubious voting behaviour. Elonka responds to an RFC and lines up on the keep side of the vote, whilst DreamGuy is aligned with the delete side.
• 03:50, 19 January 2006 - Elonka joins Talk:Aladin (magician) in response to RFC
• 22:15, 20 January 2006 - Elonka votes of AfD for Aladin (magician), including a comment which is disparages DreamGuy.
• 14:38, 20 January 2006 - Elonka creates the Eenasul Fateh - not the best idea given the active AfD, but is soon shown that this is a mistake on that articles talk page.
• 05:09, 21 January 2006 - DreamGuy posts a strong personal attack partially directed at Elonka.
• 14:15, 22 January 2006 - Elonka asks for an apology on DreamGuy's talk page.
• 15:06, 22 January 2006 - DreamGuy responds on User talk:Elonka simultaneously deleting the message from his own talk page. Unfortunately this response is also quite a strong personal attack.
• 17:11, 22 January 2006 - Elonka returns dialogue on DreamGuy's talk page.
• 07:23, 23 January 2006 - DreamGuy responds on User talk:Elonka, again deleting the discussion from his own page.
• On the next and subsequent rounds of discussion, DreamGuy no longer responds and just deletes Elonka's discussion - 09:24, [108], [109] and [110]
• eventually DreamGuy asks User:Android79 to help prevent further 'harassment' 15:16, 24 January 2006.
• User:Bishonen and User:Android79 both ask Elonka to stop posting to DreamGuy's talk page.

Now up to this point Elonka appears to be following exactly what we advise in Dispute resolution and is effectively being told to go away. The next recommended step is an RFC, so Elonka approaches a number of other editors, including myself 16:02, 24 January 2006 for advice on what to do next. My recommendation was to ingnore all previous RFCs on DreamGuy, to think twice before bringing an RFC, but if she really feels that she needs to proceed with one, she should seek assistance from someone knowledgable with the process and martial her evidence carefully. But I also have a word with DreamGuy 18:03, 24 January 2006 to no avail [111]

Elonka receives a significant amount of contradictory advice, but much of it recommends avoiding an RFC. I was impressed with by User:Encyclopedist's response, given that he had previously engaged in some pretty dodgy behaviour against DreamGuy and is now reformed.

Nevertheless, things rumble on for another week. Elonka appears to be getting more and more frustrated and starts to assist other users in dispute with DreamGuy - not a good idea given the dodgy nature of some of the editors who try to oppose DreamGuy. DreamGuy meanwhile stays true to his word and largely tries to ignore Elonka, whilst getting on with his usual round of battling sockpuppets on controversial articles.

Then we end up with this debacle over alledged harassment and attack pages, which is more like an impromptue RFC on Elonka. No worse, an impromptue RfAr, given that the quick solution was to block Elonka for a year. Now it seems to me that most interested parties have made mistakes over the past week, but primarily the dispute resolution process hasn't worked very well, and I don't think we have been entirely fair to Elonka.

I would advocate removing any remaining block on Elonka. DreamGuy has offered an apology above and with luck that might be enough to draw a line under the matter. I don't think either Elonka or DreamGuy typically edits in any overlapping subject areas, so it should be easy for them to avoid each other. If this doesn't satisfy both of them, we should move on to a proper RFC or RfAr to weigh up both sides of the dispute more carefully, rather than argue the point here. -- Solipsist 12:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, following the dispute resolution process is actually terrible advice :) RFCs tend to exasperate rather than solve problems. - Haukur 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean the point of RFCs isn't meant to be a way of raising the tension to the point where arbcom are forced to accept the case?Geni 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, in the fantasy land that is the WP:RFC page it does this:

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences[.]

Does someone have recent examples of this actually happening? - Haukur 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

None...that is why I hate RfC, I even put it on my user page.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few. Generaly those that cover articles rather than people.Geni 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that Solipsist here is asking for "common sense" to prevail while quite substantially slanting the history of what happened and glossing over some major important parts. First, that Elonka started the uncivil behavior, acting as if she were continuing an old fight with disparaging comments instead of it being her first comment ever about another longtime editor, which with all the proven sockpuppets running around at that time and making personal attacks made it look like she was either a new sockpuppet (as there were and are new accounts created specifically to continue the fighting after the first ones were blocked) or being strongly mislead by them. She had ideas about the policies and the results of the previoous vote that were simply untrue, and when I tried to point them out she ignored them and continued to make the same false and deceptive comments. Second, that Solopsist here was specifically recruited by her because he was one of few editors in a previous RFC started by a vandal and two people who have since been booted as a result of ARbcom decisions who had suggested that I needed to adjust my behavior. Having people show up here (like Solipsist and Alkivar) trying to act like outside observers when they are merely continuing old disputes is really quite ridiculous. Clearly they do not understand the concept that conflict resolution is only about ongoing conflict and not attempts to have revenge for old behavior, so naturally Solipsist is glossing over the fact that the conflict was over and done with but Elonka was still clearly harassing and stalking me. His view that she was merely following what RFC guidelines suggest is simply inaccurate, because it does not say anything about continuing to post over and over and over even after being told to leave and do whatever she wants elsewhere.

If anything needs to come out of this, it needs to be that people have to be made aware that continuing harassment and escalating conflicts that would disappear if they just let it go and moved on is simply unacceptable. From the comments of Solipsist, Alkivar and others here have made, apparently they do not get that purposefully striking out at people in active ways is a far worse problem that an occasional slip of the tongue -- especially since their bias makes them completely ignore all the extensive personal attacks and uncivil language made by the side that wsa ostensibly complaining about it. I would hope that admins and arbitrators and so forth would clearly state that this behavior is simply unacceptable to make Alkivar and others cool their heels. Otherwise this is just going to flare up again and again as they take their attacks where they can hoping to score an end result to their liking. Continuing harassment is a pretty extreme form of uncivil behavior, and it needs to stop. And with Elonka knowing that she can get out of it by appealing to a admins and others who also do harassment, I'm afraid that nobody will have learned their lessons here. DreamGuy 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

SylwiaS' view

I know Elonka from many articles to which we’ve been contributing together. I would never say that there were any problems with her and I hope she has the same opinion about me. It doesn’t mean that we always hold the same views, on the contrary. But Elonka certainly is a reasonable person who listens to arguments of other parties and goes along with the will of majority.

Does she have flaws? Certainly, as everyone else. And yes, she’s a contributor who is ready to widely advertise her case if she thinks she’s defending justice (I don’t mean this particular case but another that I observed which didn’t affect Elonka personally). I don’t say she’s right on wrong in her judgements, and I agree with Matt Crypto that Wikipedia is not a place to find justice in. I think that many of us have (sadly) learnt the lesson here, and I guess Elonka will learn it with time too. But for people who have a strong feeling of justice the lack of it is very bothering and becomes stressful with time.

There is a problem and it definitely should be resolved. But this whole discussion focuses mostly on Elonka, not on the problem. Moreover, Elonka isn’t even allowed to take part in it while her opponent is. As I see it, Wikipedia rules are not perfect. It is uncertain if they can be any better. But people shouldn’t be punished for the rules’ shortcomings. I agree that an RfC is not a perfect solution, but if not it, then what is? The usual advice people get is something like: I know that you were treated unjustly and rudely, but there really isn’t any good tool to deal with it, so just forget about it. Well, not everyone is able to forget and Elonka obviously isn’t. Maybe for Elonka an outcome of an RfC would be important even if it didn’t change the reality. Maybe if we can’t make people see that they treat us unjustly, it’s at least good to see that there are some other people who agree with us.

I think that Elonka should be unblocked and a mediation between her and DreamGuy should be made. I don’t know DreamGuy, but as he is said to be a reasonable contributor, I’m sure a mediation made by an objective Wikipedian may be fruitful for all parties involved.--SylwiaS | talk 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. Unless someone has evidence that User:Elonka is not Elonka Dunin, what this looks like is a classic case of two strong-willed contributing users butting heads and not communicating. If they could have agreed to live and let live before it came to this, that might have been a solution, but at this point the bad feelings are breeding by the moment and the only "remediation" may be mediation. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record I very clearly agreed to live and let live before it came to this, it was her following me around wikistalking me and attacking other admins who told her to stop that was the problem. DreamGuy 22:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was rather half of the problem ;)--SylwiaS | talk 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Just for the record, does DreamGuy deny having said the things about her that she documents? And if not, doen't that pretty much confirm that he's in the wrong? Unless this dispute goes farther back than the timeline shown above, or I'm misunderstanding it, this started when the two of them disagreed about whether or not a specific template should appear on a long list of relevant articles. He admits to having deleted it from a whole list of articles because he didn't think it was any good; she went around and reverted those deletions because she would prefer that the Mesopotamiam mythology-related pages have a sidebar like the ones that Greek mythology pages do and would prefer that the sidebar be fixed rather than deleted. If someone gives you a long list of pages they've changed in a way you disagree with and you go revert all of those changes, how is that wikistalking? That's an ordinary editing dispute that he needlessly escalated by throwing around personal insults. It looks more to me like it's DreamGuy who needs to be blocked until he learns to play by the rules, because it looks to me like it's him, not her, that violated Wikipedia policy. (Disclaimer: Yes, I know Elonka Dunin personally. It would be an exaggeration to say that we're friends, but I do know her. However, as someone who's argued with her in the past, and whose politics are 100% the opposite of hers, you should not assume that I'll take her side automatically just because we live in the same town and have some friends in common. Nor did I come here at her behest; I came her looking for additional info on the Congressional Staffer Edits dispute and found this by accident.) J. Brad Hicks 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Unless this dispute goes farther back than the timeline shown above, or I'm misunderstanding it, this started when the two of them disagreed about whether or not a specific template should appear on a long list of relevant articles." You are definitely misunderstanding, as the template was the END thing she did right before her block, and not how the thing started at all. She wsa rude to me, I responded in kind, I pointed out she was breaking policies and either a sockpuppet of someone previously on the article in question or someone who had taken the side of proven puppets/liars/scam artists without researching it properly, I pointed out the policies and the past history, she attacked me some more, I ignored her, she started wikistalking me, and then at the very end went in to revert the template in question (not putting it back on a bunch of pages -- don;t know where you came up withthat at all) specifically because one of many people she contacted from past conflicts with me to sitr up trouble suggested she do so because if he reverted he'd be blocked for violating 3RR and because they both knew it would annoy me. She had no prior involvement in anything related tot hat optic whatsoever, and from the comments he and her made which Bishonene already linked to, the whole thing was to piss me off and undo whatever I was doing elsewhere on the site because I was refusing to respond to her attacks on her page or my talk page or at the page where it started. DreamGuy 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You honestly believe she reverted the mesopotamian mythology article because she thought the old version was better? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. You misunderstand. The dispute started on the talk page of the NN magician "aladin." DG got intemperate, Elonka got intemperate, DreamGuy decided to walk away, Elonka got the Wikilawyer up, Elonka got the Wikistalk up, and that's where we are - Elonka continuing the intemperate behavior, and the stalkage on to other people ([112] [113] (both of which I ignored, an action I council all who come under the ire of problem users to do), and DreamGuy still pissed and firing away. Yay for the internets. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to remind you of WP:NPA, with the hope that any of the scores of admins reading this will do so as well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, Hipocrite is not a troll. I've been following the discussions for some time and I must say that Hipocrite did a lot to help your cause even if he doesn't agree with the means you undertook against DreamGuy. And now you undertake the same means against Hipocrite. Calling him a troll and telling on him on other pages really doesn't bring you any profits. You were insulted, I can understand it. I was too, many times. Not everyone here behaves. But well, noblesse oblige, if you don't want to become similar to the rude people, you cannot lower yourself to their level. I checked the changes Hipocrite made to Elonka Dunin article, there was nothing wrong with them. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, even articles about living persons. Hipocrite tried to mediate in your cause, he was rejected by DreamGuy and insulted by yourself. Yet, he didn't lose his temper. Quite remarkable.--SylwiaS | talk 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. "Hipocrite is a troll?" Well, I'm not fond of the user, but this kind of heat without light is exactly what testifies to this complaint. Elonka, you got mad. DreamGuy got mad. DreamGuy went about his business. You stayed mad and kept escalating. At which point does a person say, "This is an RFC matter" and at which point does one say "This is an RFar" matter. I agree a block, although a short term one, for cooling off. The message I think you should get from all of this on AN/I is two words: "Calm down." Leave well enough alone. The fact that DreamGuy stopped reading and responding to you really should have given you a clear signal that he was dropping the matter. A fight takes two people, and you kept and keep swinging. Edit articles. Read articles. Research stuff. Do not take it personally or try to triumph. There is no winning on Wikipedia: there is only writing an encyclopedia. Winning is for basketball games, not community editing. Geogre 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Archangel White Tiger

I have blocked this editor over these edits. Just letting everyone know. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Motorized bicycle

I have protected this page (will unprotect in 24h) to prevent a single user with a cause from adding {NPOV} and {dispute} tags, where no such disputes exist. I'm notifying it here because technically it could be seen as a content dispute in which I am involved, but since the tags are the problem and the content dispute centres on minor textual issues within the article I'd say the technicality does not technically apply. User:Katefan0 and User:Woohookitty know the background. I thought a brief period of page protection was better than blocking the user. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You really shouldn't protect an article you are in involved in. There's 800 other admins out there, and a page WP:RfP for the purpose. -Splash^talk 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately JzG, Splash is right. I had thoughts of protecting the page myself, but I'm involved too. It's been 2 months since I contributed to the article but still. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two months is a long time. I wouldn't consider that close involvement, but that's up to you really. Radiant_>|< 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I live and learn. Unlike Pat... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Help! (Major Taylor)

I recently moved Major Taylor (Musician) to Major Taylor; the original "Major Taylor" page was a redirect to someone whose nickname it was, and I thought that someone whose real name it was belonged there (also, of course, the first title was wrongly capitalised). This morning I found that Rogerhat had moved it back with no explanation, even keeping the mis-capitalised form. I re-moved it — and that's where things went wrong. After an "error" page (all too common nowadays) I found that I'd ended up with both Major Taylor and Major Taylor (Musician) as redirects to Major Taylor, and the article nowehere to be found. Could someone recover the article (or, better, tell me how to do it)? Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Major Taylor, then you should be able to access the deleted edits. Does that help? Leithp 13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the history shows nothing but moves. no edits whatsoever. -- Ec5618 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a user by the name of Mayor Taylor, so I'm having difficulty following your story. And are you sure this Major Taylor (Musician) exists?

By the way, there was no need to capitalise the word 'Musician' in that title.

Still, I can find no information on a musician by the name of Major Taylor. I did find an Otis Taylor though, and and article on Marshall Taylor (Marshall 'Mayor' Taylor, in fact), a cyclist. Major Taylor at one point redirected to the latter, although it certainly seems little evidence of that fact remains. How odd. -- Ec5618 13:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion:

1. There's no editor called "Major Taylor".
2. The miscapitalised "Musician" was (as I explained) part of the problem that I was correcting.
3. The information about the "Major Taylor" concerned was in the article — which has disappeared – from the article and the History – in a page-move glitch. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was weird. I removed the redirect and the history was restored. Is that right now? Leithp 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I viewed all the deleted edits in the history and restored them. I then couldn't find them until I removed the redirect from the article. Leithp 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar. Thanks for that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that the band called The Allies, of which this musician is lead singer, is currently undergoing a vote for deletion? It's not looking too promising, which means this singer may be non-notable. -- Ec5618 13:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I doubt that the article will last very long. Still, I didn't want it to disappear by Wikimagic rather than an AfD. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with Georgian POV pusher(s)

Numerous IPs have recently started removing Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the list of sovereign states, refusing to accept that that list is not meant to duplicate United Nations member states and follows different criteria. See talk page for attempts at reasoning with the most recently active anon. I will neither block the IP nor protect the page, since I'm clearly involved in the dispute. —Nightstallion (?) 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now requested temporary page (semi-)protection. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He's been at it at Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms as well, using the account Pirveli (talk · contribs). Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 71.251.139.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

for 3RR violation at Lithium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), also blocked Trevoc44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears this is the same person, certainly reverted to the same content). You know I'm new at this mop-and-bucket business, so if anyone wants to review these and adjust, feel free - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I counted fifteen reverts in 35 hours and not a word on the talkpage. Do you have any way of telling if the IP is reasonably stable? Because if it is, you might want to add a talkpage warning about a longer block if the behavior is resumed, including blocking any obvious socks used for the same purpose. (Incidentally, if it is stable, I guess Lithium Man's penis is extremely fucking large.) Bishonen | talk 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC).

208.40.128.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Was 24h block right? This is not an AOL IP and there was persistent vandalism for some time and the IP is either static or rarely used to edit WP. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A 24 h block was ok, but more warnings might have been appropriate. The last warning this IP has received dates back a week and a half. Since this is an IP, the previous round of vandalism was possibly committed by another user. I don't think it's necessary to go through the entire series from the very first, lowest, weakest warning to the block, but imo a test3 template would have been a good place to start. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification on how to deal with a likely open proxy

I know using open proxies around here is verboten and that we are supposed to indefinitely block them when we find them. However, I am very unclear on the processes, if any, are involved. I'm aware of WP:OP, but it looks pretty embryonic to me. I also know what the signs of an open proxy are, but I'm not sure how to confirm them. Should my response for a likely suspect simply be to slap a {{blocked proxy}} and indef., or is there another reporting mechanism in place? The most recent case is from 209.51.154.234 (diff), which demonstrates the backslash pattern of a misconfigured proxy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're quite sure it's an open proxy, just block with {{Blocked proxy}} and be done with it - I do. As for sure signs of one ... if in doubt, don't :-) - David Gerard 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's one of the backslashing ones, block on sight. They are almost certainly open proxies, and even if they weren't, the damage they make is more than enough reason for an instantaneous indefinite block. --cesarb 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've indefinitely blocked the IP I mentioned. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that if someone emails and says "it's not an open proxy, what are you on about" be prepared to unblock — some of these are 0wnz0r3d boxes on DHCP. If they email and say "WTF YOU BLOCK TOR YUO FACIST YUO HATE FREEDOM" you should theoretically resist the urge to say "Yeah, we hate freedom, now go away kthxbye" - David Gerard 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. It's cPanel [114]. Which means it's a web hosting service. --cesarb 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And if we're seeing edits from it, it's a misconfigured one. Zap until site sysadmin emails to say "um, please unblock" - David Gerard 10:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka mess

I'm increasingly of the opinion this is an unfortunate incident (= clusterfuck) rather than a symptom of deep malice on the part of either Elonka or DreamGuy. I'm in email contact with Elonka and I've left a note for DreamGuy, suggesting they contact each other directly afresh, and if that doesn't sound workable then offering to mediate, with the hoped-for outcome being two tolerably happy Wikipedians. I've also unblocked Elonka - David Gerard 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Solipsist 18:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The mess seems to be getting worse... Elonka and User:Hipocrite have both taken it upon themselves to modify Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68 in an effort to remove what Elonka considers to be a personal attack. Apparently pointing out that she lied when she did in fact lie is a personal attack in her mind. We simply cannot modify archived pages for these kinds of goals, or else we'd have active warring for all time on all such pages. DreamGuy 19:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a space to an archive to satisfy her (irrational, in my mind, probably gaming the system) fear that because wikipedia was so highly google ranked that all of a sudden google searches for "elonka lie" would start hitting on the remarks she found offensive. This space hurts no one, and helps one person. I considered adding a 1 white pixel picture there instead of a space. You contribute far more usefully to this project than I do, DreamGuy, when you're not wasting everyone's time trying to stop all over people who have made mistakes. Get back to doing that, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Caving to irrational complaints is really counterproductive, and you simply cannot modify archived pages. If people realize they can do that and get away with it, it's going to cause no end of trouble all over the place. By opposing this extremely bad precedent I am contributing this project far more than simply reverting the latest stack of today's vandals and spammers would help. You are way out of line. DreamGuy 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to call this the "Elonka mess." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to add a space to archives if it'll help solve a dispute. This is a wiki, after all: you could even refactor the comments wholesale (in theory; I'm not recommending that!). The original comments are always there in the history. — Matt Crypto 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone should not be modifying other people comments without permission, especially not on an archive page. We can;t just do whatever anyone wants and try to justify it as "helping to solve a dispute". If she wants the dispute solved she needs to get over her ridiculous ultimatums... especially since what she wants is to be allowed to say whatever she wants about me anywhere she wants to say it and prevent me from doing the same thing. This is nonsense. DreamGuy 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. — Matt Crypto 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite has also gone to edit other pages Elonka has complained about, including MY talk page, to remove words Elonka complained about -- this is absolutely unacceptable, he is not allowed to change what I wrote, period. If Elonka objected to the use of the word "lie" to describe her behavior for fear tht it will reflect poorly upon her in Google searches, she should not have lied. Censoring my comments as a response to someone's histrionics is completely inappropriate. DreamGuy 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's view

I'm not even sure I know where to start. This thing has gotten so big, with so many incidents of abuse, that I'm kind of at a loss about how to keep my reply brief enough to actually be read. But I'll try. I've got sections here on Bishonen, Gerard, DreamGuy, Wikipedia in general, my constructive suggestions on how to avoid situations like this in the future, and a final note on WP:RPA.

All I ask is that everyone reads this with an open mind. I'm confident that most of you reading this are intelligent people who are able to make up your own minds, when presented with the facts. After all, we've all got experience writing encyclopedia articles, eh?  :)

Bishonen

In my opinion, Bishonen has exhibited extremely poor judgment throughout this. She took DreamGuy's initial (highly deceptive) post[115] to Android79's talk page to heart, evidently because she herself was recently the victim of real harassment. She went straight over to DreamGuy's page to basically say "I'll protect you" (she also said I was worse than Everyking)[116], and then ran over to my talk page to say, "Stop harassing him or you're blocked."[117] Further conversations between me and her did not go much better.[118][119] The next major incident was her starting this thread with the accusation of a "smear campaign". Next, she muddled a set of diffs, putting confusion between what I had said and what Castanea dentata had said. But I think the clearest example of poor judgment was when, after I was blocked and limited to posting comments on my userpage to try and defend myself, she sought out any place that someone tried to pass those comments along here to the Admin noticeboard, and removed them.[120] She chastised people that were trying to speak on my behalf, and chastised me for trying to "get around a block". There's no policy on Wikipedia which said that my behavior was inappropriate -- she was making up stuff as she went along, trying to gag me and prevent me from defending myself against her charges.

Horse feathers! You'll notice that Bishonen's name commands a certain respect. This is because she has, in all the time I've known her on Wikipedia, always, always, always checked diffs, always gone into the history. In fact, you were harassing, and Bishonen was aware of the dispute from back in the magician brouhaha. Dream Guy might say a naughty word, but he stopped. You didn't. Other people even tried to say, "Look, here's how to build an RFC, if you really want, but stop screaming." You kept insisting that Dream Guy was out to get you, that he was behind every negative comment and rebuff you suffered, and anyone who didn't take your side was deluded. Bishonen has been fair, even handed, and patient. Furthermore, Bishonen was entirely correct in invoking WP:BLOCK. You can read it yourself to see that acting as the postman for a banned user is frowned upon. Did she delete those comments? No. She moved them and left a link. This is the procedure when someone illegitimately posts to AN/I. No one is telling you not to "defend" yourself, but virtually everyone on the project is telling you to stop attacking. Defense is "I am not a troll." Attack is "Hipocrite is a troll." See the difference? Defend yourself, but attack no one else. No personal attacks. No mischaracterizations of edits. No accusations that someone is taking sides. Just answer for the one person you're actually an authority on: yourself. If you had taken this course earlier, none of this AN/I mess would have occurred, and certainly no block. Geogre 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard

On Gerard, I'm fairly neutral at this point. On the one hand, his block was inappropriate, and it was clear that he didn't do any research to see if I was a genuine user, aside from scanning an IP log. If he would have made even a cursory glance at my user page or contribution history he would have quickly seen that I was a "real" user. Instead he made a kneejerk decision within a few minutes of Bishonen's single message, and permanently blocked a good user without any debate or even bothering to place a courtesy note on my talk page. It happened so fast I didn't even get a chance to post a rebuttal to Bishonen's attack.

To Gerard's credit, he did realize his mistake and lifted the block in less than 24 hours. I will point out though that there's a subtle threat in the comment that he put on my unblock, "Unblocked for now", with the implication that I'm some kind of problem user that's only gotten a temporary reprieve.

DreamGuy

I would say what I really thought about DreamGuy's behavior at this point, but I would just get accused of a personal attack.  ;) In fact, no matter what I put he's probably going to call it harassment, but here goes: DreamGuy has been gaming the system. He knows exactly what the rules are, and further, he knows which rules are never enforced. If there's a rule that is enforced, he knows exactly how far he can push it, and he pushes to that limit over and over again. Then if any admin gets wise to him and blocks him for violating the "spirit" of the policy, he goes into wiki-lawyer mode and demands that the block be reversed. This happens again and again. Just check his Block log.

DreamGuy is also talented at throwing back counter-accusations and false statements (in simple terms, he lies a lot). He's quick to accuse other people of "harassing him", of lying, of being obnoxious, of stalking, though most of those behaviors are actually his own. DreamGuy knows how easy it is to make a false accusation, to stretch the truth to the point of breaking, and he knows how hard it is for other Wikipedians to know whether or not he's telling the truth, especially when he doesn't supply diffs to back up his claims. As a general rule of thumb, I've learned to disbelieve anything DreamGuy says, unless he has diffs to back it up. He claimed to Petros that he had "four or more admins" supporting him[121] (false). He told Android79 that he'd told me "several days back" to stop bothering him[122] (false). He claims that I made far worse personal attacks on him (false). He claims that he clearly said to me "live and let live"[123] (false). And then he has the cojones to say that "The things she wants removed as 'personal attacks' against her are simply cases of me accurately pointing out what she wsa doing, and in the meantime she made tons of personal attacks herself."[124] (guess)  ;)

Whoever it is behind the username of DreamGuy, he seems to love conflict. He craves it, he gravitates to it, and if he can't find it, he makes it. He's been pouring rage into Wikipedia. You don't even need to look at his specific posts -- just look at his edit summaries in his history. He tosses around words like "harassment", "obnoxious", "ridiculous", "liar"[125][126]. In fact, he even created the "Don't be a dick" redirect page yesterday[127], just so he could hyperlink "don't be a dick" in an edit summary.[128]. Yes, sometimes he's reverting bonafide vandalism or pulling spam off a page, and those are useful activities. But primarily he's not adding to Wikipedia, he's just removing from it. He's also heaping abuse on people along the way[129], and leaving a wide swath of antagonized users in his wake. Has he created anything recently? Written an article? Added a few good paragraphs somewhere? If so, I couldn't find it, and I looked. I mean I really really looked.

As for an apology, yes he posted one apology in this discussion, where he made it clear that he was just copy/pasting what I'd asked, and buried it in a much longer post. Then within hours he was starting up the attacks again, and saying that I shouldn't be allowed back.[130]

And if you really want proof that he's just doing everything possible to prolong this conflict, look at the revert war that he and Hipocrite engaged in, at the Archive page.[131][132] Hipocrite tried to change the page to make the insults non-searchable, and DreamGuy took the time to revert his original insults back onto the page. He did this at the archive, and he did this at Talk:Eenasul Fateh.[133] So his "apology" means even less. On the one hand, he said that posting an apology in the locations that I wanted was "silly", but on the other, he's willing to take the time to engage in a revert war to get his original insults back on a page, and he clearly told multiple people that he does not want any of his comments removed[134][135]. Are there any more clear examples of bad faith? If he wanted this problem over, if he was genuinely trying to act in good faith, he would either remove his personal attacks, offer an apology in those locations, or allow others to remove them. Instead, he does exactly the opposite.

I ask the Wikipedia community to look at this situation with clarity: DreamGuy has been systematically deceiving the community, causing problems, and then lying or trying to cover up what happened. Anyone that has any doubts about this, ask me to back something up, and I'll give you the diffs. I've got plenty.

Wikipedia

Certain things have become clear to me throughout the last week or two:

(1) The Wikipedia dispute resolution process is broken. The well-written pages at WP:DR have little relation to how things actually work.

(2) Wikipedia is not enforcing its policies in a consistent way. The "No Personal Attacks" policy is either not being enforced at all, or it's primarily being enforced against new users -- longtime users know that they can almost completely disregard it, without consequence

(3) There are Wikipedia admins who are exhibiting very poor judgment, and demonstrating a "Shoot first, investigate later" mentality

Suggestions

(1) The Wikipedia community has to make a decision about whether or not they want a civil environment. Is the "no personal attacks" policy supposed to be enforced, or not? If so, there have to be consequences. If there are no consequences, the policy is meaningless.

(2) (Technical suggestion). Though it's obvious that Wikipedia wants search engines to index the actual articles here, I would suggest that there are plenty of pages here which should probably stay off Google, such as internal administrator discussions, and most of the "talk" pages. This is for more than just defamation -- If the "talk" pages are just as easily searched as the articles, the articles are going to be weakened, because people are just going to post whatever info they need to on a discussion page, and Wikipedia's high search engine placement is going to get their information out that way. All of this could be implemented by putting the Meta tags NOINDEX and NOFOLLOW into the source of talk pages and Admin pages. The pages would still be searchable within the Wikipedia community, which is fine -- but they'd stay off the public search engines.

(3) The dispute resolution process needs an overhaul. I'm not even sure how to make suggestions about this, because I'm still not sure how it's working currently, and there's plenty of contradictory information, not to mention "places to ask for help" that do no good. The way it probably should work, is: (1) attempt to work things out directly; (2) invite other community members to participate in the discussion; (3) appeal to a committee that has training on how to evaluate a situation; (4) ensure that the committee has power to actually enforce its recommendations.

WP:RPA

And lastly, I'm going to ask for the same thing that I've been asking all along -- I want the personal attacks against me to be removed. They're in places like Talk:Eenasul Fateh, User_talk:Android79, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68, Template_talk:Mesopotamian mythology, and here on this page. Just blank them. Or remove them and say, "Message refactored to history [1]" and link to the diff where it was pulled. Why is this so difficult to achieve?

What possible good is it doing for Wikipedia to keep the attacks there, and prolong this matter?

How about this: Unless there is serious objection (DreamGuy posting 7 messages doesn't count), I'll go refactor them myself, 24 hours after this message. I'll refactor them by blanking them and then adding a link to where they can be read in history, and then I'll come back here to post the diffs of what I did so everyone can make sure I did it correctly. I give you my word that I'll do my best to do it politely and professionally. And anyway, if I screw it up, the pages are easily reverted. Can I get a consensus to do this? I just want the attacks removed, and then to get back to the encyclopedia. Elonka 16:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider this a serious objection. Go do something other than worry about how the evil DreamGuy is torturing you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a lot of good points, Elonka. We shouldn't really have Google indexing every nook and cranny of the 'pedia. Our dispute resolution process ain't all that. DreamGuy is hard to get along with. WP:NPA is very haphazardly enforced. That's all true. I personally don't see any reason why personal attacks in archives can't be removed - even if there isn't a specific policy for doing so. Bishonen has, on occasion, removed personal attacks. I've never done so myself.

At the end of the day Wikipedian ethics are very utilitarian (sometimes, I think, excessively so). All anyone cares about when there's a conflict between productive editor A and productive editor B is to get them back to being productive editors. You typically can't have any redress of grievances and seeking it persistently will make you appear disruptive even if you are completely in the right. This goes double if you don't do useful edits to the encyclopedia in the meantime. - Haukur 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you have my blessing to remove personal attacks. If anyone interferes, feel free to email me about it via "email this user" and I will take care of it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RPA does not include blanking entire comments, or blanking entire talk pages [136]. Feel free to remove a word here or there, but deleting an entire comment that was critical of you is not, and Phil, correct me if I misunderstood you here, going to be supported. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does: [137] [138]. Latinus 17:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. In this case it does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a complete side issue to the matter at hand, but I want to second what Haukur notes above. We ought to seriously consider making a change to Wikipedia's robots.txt file to block spidering of dispute resolution pages. --Aaron 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list is discussing this for closed AFDs of real people now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust Elonka's discretion, and if she steps over the line I'll address that issue as well. RPA does include blanking entire comments if the only substance of the comment is to make a personal attack, for instance. But if someone makes a "you asshole" remark in passing while raising a substative point, the "you asshole" remark is all that needs to be removed. To make myself clear: people restoring personal attacks that Elonka is deleting will be blocked for violating NPA. If people complain about that, then I'll just speedy the whole page as an attack page. If you want to talk about policy, I have the policy backing to do both; if you want to talk about doing the right thing so we can have a productive encyclopedia-writing community, I'm fully justified. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Has NPA gone over to policy now? It was a guideline recently. I don't support personal attacks of course, and I try never to make them, but I don't support letting the supposed victim of a personal attack be the arbiter of whether or not there has been one, and "who decides what is a personal attack" has been what has kept WP:NPA from getting to be policy all along. All of which is not to say that Elonka can or cannot remove an "asshole" here and there, but blocking for violating RPA would be bad news, too. Geogre 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and civility are Wikipedia's #1 problem, and we need to start taking it seriously. If someone wants so badly to make a personal attack that they interfere with the removal of those attacks, blocking them is the best option to stop the attacks from recurring. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, give me a break -- you somehow missed the total disconnect between Elonka claiming that me pointing out that she lied when she was caught in a lie as being a "personal attack" yet she goes around calling myself and Bishonen and everyone she disagrees with a liar... What she is asking for is all criticism of her to be removed while she is allowed to say anything she wants to about anyone while encouraging other people to do the same thing. Don't let her fool you into thinking this is a simple matter of removing personal attacks, as it is not... And you threatening to block me or anyone for restoring comments that she or people working on her behalf falsely label personal attacks shows sheer chutzpah and naivity. Are you even paying attention to what she is saying? She is calling people trolls and trying to drag down admins with false accusations and censor criticism of herself and you want to help her? Hell no. Wake up. And if you try enforcing blocks for that behavior I would hope you get yourself blocked very quickly, because you'd be violating policy and in a very bad way.

Furthermore, civility is clearly not the major problem here, it's people not following rules, making up their own rules, twisting rules and blocking people and so forth for no sensible reason. Someone is not civil to you, let it slide off. Someone is stalking you and threatening to abuse their power to advance their own ends -- that's the problem... along with the constant spammers, POV pushers, hoaxers and sockpuppets we have running around. But as long as people feign politeness to each other you don't mind all the rest? Get your priorities straight. DreamGuy 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So it isn't policy. Ok. Stopping someone removing a personal attack requires all sides agree that something is a personal attack, agreeing on where the attack begins and ends, and all sides agreeing with what to do with the "removed" attack. Once that's settled, I'll agree with you. (Personal attacks are about #200 on the list of Wikipedia's problems, in my opinion, but perhaps I'm thick skinned.) Geogre 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What Elonka claims are personal attacks for the most part clearly are not, and she has made quite incredible attacks herself and egged other people on to do the same and we're just supposed to let her choose what's an attack and what's not? That's clearly bogus. Anyone buying into Elonka's sob story is not facing facts here... what she's doing in response to perceived problems is far, far worse. At this point I'm surprised she hasn't been blocked again. DreamGuy 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:CyclePat

CyclePat (talk · contribs) is on a mission. He doesn't like the fact that electric bicycles are rolled into the article on Motorized bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's tried forking, article RfC, request for mediation, asking admins - and he keeps getting an answer he doesn't like. The current campaign is the addition of frivolous tags to the article. I think User:Woohookitty, User:Katefan0 and I have finally managed ot persuade him that {disputed} and {NPOV} are inappropriate, so now it's {ActiveDiscuss}, {Expansion}, {Otheruses4|1=Motorized bicycle|2=Moped|3=Moped} (which is false by the definition in the article), and adding {fact} after every second paragraph. Right now the "active discussion" is Pat repeating all the same arguments which have seen him in a minority of one in each of the dozens of earlier debates. Katefan0 said it right: he is trying to make something out of nothing. My patience is at an end, perhaps if a 'fourth admin were to tell him to stop it he might believe it (although experience indicates not).

Right now we have an article on the motorized bicycle, a harmless and factually accurate (within normal bounds) account of a mundane machine, which is tagged up like Turkish claims on Cyprus or something, just because we won't let one user who has a problem with his local legislature completely change the coverage of the subject to suit his own agenda. It is utterly ludicrous. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please delete this article!

This Left-Wing Smearjob really offends me, please delete it--64.12.116.65 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the subject of this article is WAY TOO FAMOUS for the article to be deleted. --TML1988 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

NN, D. Only 117,000,000 Google hits.--Sean Black|Talk 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BJODN?--Tznkai 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously vanity. Must check it wasn't created by one of those House IPs - David Gerard 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to George H. W. Bush --Deathphoenix 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If only... Guettarda 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regforafd unblocked

I've been in email contact with this user. It's a real person, that's the name he wants (even if it has some confusion value) and I'm unblocking the autoblocks too - David Gerard 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DrWitty blocked

On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, User:DrWitty placed what would better be described as an outside view in the response section [139]. After I moved it to the "outside views" section, he started edit warring and attacking me on my talk page. I've given him a 1 hour block for disruption and incivility. I'd appreciate feedback from other admins about my decision here, of course. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevent instructions in the Response section state:

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section."

Anyone with RFC experience will agree that you cannot RFC an entire branch of government. By its own terms a User Conduct RFC is only appropriate for a single user. That means that a comment that the RFC is unjustified (as against Wikipedia policy) properly belongs in the Response section. No other comment has pointed out this violation of policy. No other user has complained about the location of the comment. This administrator has unilaterally imposed his view of where another's submission should be located, when that submission is not contrary to the instructions followed by the submitter. DrWitty 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I will also note that the blocking came without warning and violated the terms of "When blocking cannot be used" according to the Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. ("[Blocking cannot be used] to gain advantage in a content dispute. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict.") DrWitty 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that someone tried to start an RFC against deletionists once.Geni 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment (about Staffers)

• Back during the December 2005 mayorial election, Bloomberg's staffers did the same thing, no one seemed to care, nor did anyone even suggest that it was inappropriate for them to do so, which is a shame--205.188.117.68 02:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-block

I added a three hour block because he's been keeping it up. This is not a content dispute—it would be charitable to even call it a formatting dispute. More realistically, it's a new user screwing up and being a dick when someone tries to clean up after him. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 02:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

He "kept it up" by splitting his comment to note that the RFC was unjustified in the Response section, but keeping all the rest of the content in the administrator's preferred section. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_Congress&diff=37452050&oldid=37451991

It is clear that the administrator will brook nothing but a comment from "Congress" in the Response section despite the clear instructions copied above, and will enforce this decision without warning through blocking. Regardless of how the administrator wants to describe this, it is an article-editing conflict, and the administrator is bound to follow Wikipedia policy as well. Attempting to preserve the original intent of my own submission is not being uncivil, harassing, or being a WP:DICK. No other administrator or user has supported this administrator's single minded attempt to force my submission to conform to his mold. If this was "screwing up", someone else would have come to the same conclusion. The personal attacks are also completely out of line. 71.72.76.217 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No other administrator or user has opposed my decision to block you, either. The block of Ril, mentioned below on this page, has engendered plenty of discussion, so if I was doing something wrong I'm sure someone would have complained and unblocked you by now. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

At some point I would like you to explain what the "or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete" portion of those instructions means. Regardless of how you prefer to characterize this dispute, you are the one that is attempting to alter content in an article on your own initiative, and enforcing that alteration through your administrative actions. You need to justify those changes beyond calling them misformatting. I attempted to correct the formatting by altering the submission, and you immediately blocked me again without warning. The majority of the problem here revolves around that fact that you are substituting name calling, personal attacks, and blocking for the explanation and negotiation that you are supposed to employ when you edit an article. Lack of comment by other administrators does not equal approval. Lack of complaint by other users is a rather different story.

I'm complaining. DrWitty may have participated in revert warring, and for that, should be blocked, but the instructions on the RfC page are very clear. The Response section says: "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section." If DrWitty thinks that the dispute is unjustified, and the RfC was begun against policy, shouldn't his summary go in the response section? It makes sense to me.--Alhutch 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But the *intent* of that is for someone taking the side of the user(s) being filed against, which by my reading, it not what DrWitty was doing. Even if it was appropriate to file his statement under "response", it makes more sense to file under "outside view". That, however, is not the point—the point is this user's needlessly uncivil and confrontational means of addressing this dispute. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking the side of the users, i.e. the U.S. Congress, by pointing out that the attempt to pursue a User Conduct RFC that bans three class B IP ranges violates Wikipedia policy? It sounds like you're rejecting the content based upon the conduct that occured after I submitted the content, and not the content itself. If that's the case, then at what point are you going to dismiss the conduct and focus on the content? This is the first time you've conceded that anything submitted to the Response section may have been appropriate. DrWitty 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I never conceded that anything submitted to the Response section may have been appropriate, and the comment you're replying to rejects your formatting of the content on its own terms, as well as your conduct on its own terms—I have not "rejected the content based upon the conduct". In summary, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension before you try responding to me again. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So it is your position that I cannot post anything about the RFC violating WikiPedia policy in the Response section of the RFC? DrWitty 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Your edit comment also states "brush up on your reading comprehension" -- how is that not confrontational and harassing? I again object to the continuous personal attacks. DrWitty 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am neither Phil nor an administrator, however, in my opinion you are sticking your third party opinion in the space clearly reserved for the "defendant" in the process.

There are two questions regarding your conduct: one, are you sticking stuff clearly in the wrong place, and two, are you making a valid point regarding the RFC being improper under Wikipedia policy.

My inclination is to agree that the RFC may be improper.

I firmly conclude that you are putting your commentary in the wrong place, unless you work for Congress and haven't brought it up yet. Please stop; you're shooting the Oppose camp in the foot in doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I posted in my talk page, the "or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified" is meaningless if you have to be Congress or represent Congress. At this point, opinion is evenly divided. The original submission should have stood and there should have been discussion before the content was moved according to Wikipedia policy. DrWitty 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The exact wording is This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete..

You are not arguing that the dispute is unjustified (that Congressional staffers are not editing articles they should not be), or that the summary is biased or incomplete.

Your position is that the RFC as a remedy for the dispute is improper. Which is a perfectly legitimate point to make. But does not factually challenge the claim that there is a legitimate dispute in progress, or challenge the accuracy or completeness of the above summary. There is a dispute; the RFC statement of the dispute appears to contain factual edit histories and other content, and opinions that it violates WIkipedia policies, properly for that section. Ergo, any comments you want to make (say, that RFC as a remedy is improper) should go in the Outside Views section. Conflating "there's no dispute" with "this remedy is improper" is what's getting you in trouble. Separate out what you think is wrong, categorize it properly mentally, and the right section is clear. Georgewilliamherbert 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, please read the entire comment. Your summary is incomplete. The comment states that the RFC is unjustified because 1. It violates Wikipedia policy (first portion of first paragraph) 2. It affects multiple users, at least some of whom make legitimate edits (second portion of the first paragraph) 3. It will be ineffective for its intended purpose (first portion of the second paragraph) 4. It will stifle legitimate submissions by others in the affected IPs (middle of second paragraph) 5. It violates the Wikipedia ethos that anyone is presumptively able to edit Wikipedia entries (middle of second paragraph) and 6. that Wikipedia cannot elimitate broad swaths of users, but must contain the individuals creating the problem or sacrifice its mission.

I am arguing that the dispute is unjustified for a host of reasons. The comment factually challenges the the scope that the creator of the RFC associates with the dispute, and it challenges the completeness of the summary, which suggests that such a block list can even be implemented under current policy. The right section is clear to me as well, and we still disagree. DrWitty 06:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're conflating again. Step back. Dispute is the claimed conduct, which you are not arguing with, anywhere in your full comment, that I can see. You are not disagreeing that people from those IPs are making the edits claimed, are you? Georgewilliamherbert 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute that hundreds of Congressional employees that will be affected by the proposed ban have engaged in any conduct that violates Wikipedia policy. I dispute that several of the IPs cited in the RFC have engaged in conduct that violates Wikipedia policy, because they admittedly have made legitimate contributions without any illegitimate contributions. It's the inherent flaw in the collective accusation. I see no reason to ignore it. If you want to press the point, I will be happy to provide at least a short list of IPs that are by admission excluded from any ban under current policy. DrWitty 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

These are all arguments that the remedy is incorrect. Stop conflating. Georgewilliamherbert 07:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not conflating. The conduct is the prerequisite for the remedy, and the conduct has not been sufficiently proven. The conduct has been proven with respect to a short list of IP addresses, not 200,000 IP addresses. RFC those IP addresses. I dispute the rest. It has no more to do with the remedy than a single user posting "Did not" in their own defense. DrWitty 07:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody is using my name.

Recently on my home page somebody wrote burn in hell pickelbarrel and signed my name at the bottom about thirty times. I suspect it is user:Pamento as he has made previous comments like this on my home page as well as his, but have no proof. Can you find out who is signing my name and do something to stop this please?pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations by User:Ardenn

This user nominated an article for deletion in bad faith (the subject had been, inter alia, a regular columnist for Relix magazine, and meets the notability requirement as a writer alone) [[140]] ; repeatedly deleted another editor's comments from the AfD questioning whether the nomination was made in good faith; and responded to reports of an undenied 3RR violation by filing a false (and obviously bad faith) 3RR violation report against me. (Note that a second editor independently filed a 3RR report on the same incident.) Monicasdude 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Block over British controversy

I would appreciate if other admins could look into the block which was placed on me over the article Ian McKellen by User:TimPope. One user has been unilaterally attempting to remove all mention of British as a nationality (Special:Contributions/Layla12275, Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73, Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226 over the past week without there being any prior discussion or consensus to remove British (and replace with English). I explained to User:TimPope that until there had been a proper discussion and change in policy all articles which had been changed by the above user should be reverted to their original version. User:TimPope has said that he doesn't care about British being removed and also made a WP:POINT in response to my complaints about the actions of the above user by changing Robert Carlyle and Charlotte Church to British (Talk:Ian McKellen), when I had made it clear that I was not arguing that Welsh or Scottish people should be tagged British. I strongly feel that User:TimPope as a non neutral party in this dispute should not have used admin powers against someone on the opposing side and that all the articles changed by the above user should be changed back if and until a proper discussion of policy has been made on this issue. (original discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_removing_British). Arniep Arniep 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The block was inappropriate. Tim is involved in the dispute himself, and so should not have blocked over it. Posting on WP:AN/3RR would also have helped to clarify exactly why he was blocking: it's not at all clear to me which of Arniep's various edits were reverts. Tim also seems to have been confused about this himself, as his message to Arniep is unclear whether he's blocking for 3RR or for 'your 5th reversion in 48 hours' [141] (not a blockable offence). I also not that while continual reverting short of 3RR is not ideal, Arniep has been discussing the matter on the talk page (unlike the anon). Mark¹ 12:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Arniep's continuing reverts on Ian McKellen are becoming extremely disruptive. Also his description of an anonymous editor's edits as "pure vandalism" are false and show a willingness to game the system. I felt the block was appropriate due to the further reverts falling just outside the 3 reverts within 24 hours, for which Arniep was duly warned.

I had tried to find alternative forms of words which might have been acceptable to Arniep and 82.4.86.73 such as "British from England" and leaving simply British, but placing the article in English subcategories but Arniep did not accept these suggestions. It is not true to say that the anonymous user has not discussed his edits on the talk page, as he put his reasoning plainly and simply.

As to interpretation of 3RR, it is stated "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I found Arniep to be gaming the system with a revert just outside the three within 24 hours, with two further reverts. It should also be noted that Arniep has made three further reverts to the Ian McKellen article within 2 hours today:

15:53, 31 January 2006

16:59, 31 January 2006

17:13, 31 January 2006

Arniep has also started to make sockpuppet allegations against other editors (see the last diff.). There are at least three different anonymous IP addresses who have edited within the last 48 hours, and it seems to be stretching the bounds of possibility that they all the same user.

I acknowlegde that it could be perceived that it was inappropriate for me to make the block, and therefore I will list any further violations on WP:3RR --TimPope 18:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your accusation of gaming the system extremely offensive. I devote many hours a day to watching articles and correcting vandalism. When I saw that one user was making unilateral changes by trying to change every single header and category that mentions British to English, this seemed to me to be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy as no discussion had taken place to implement such a change. The point is that every article which the anonymous user has changed should be reverted back to it's original version, otherwise we are saying yes it's OK to make unilateral changes without discussion or consensus and that is OK to use sock puppets to defend those changes. Arniep 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked Arniep the first time, and I would certainly do so again. The issue of "British" vs. "English" is one that I care not a whit about, but the distinction has been endlessly debated on the appropriate pages. A "new user" (not new, IMO) came along from an IP and managed to go through dozens of articles and make only a substition of "English" for "British." This IP did not, under that IP address, justify these changes. In other words, it appears to be someone who was on the losing side of the debate and who has come on as an IP to get his way. That is vandalism. The reversion of vandalism knows no 3RR. Whatever one might feel about the distinction in question, unilateral changes without discussion are not permitted. Whatever one may feel about Ian Mack and Arniep's point of view, reverting an IP's mass change was not an editorial revert. Every other concern about him is a separate matter and was not voiced as a block reason. Geogre 11:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:-Ril-

When looking over the block log, I noticed that User:-Ril- had been blocked indefinitely. The justification given was that he was allegedly a sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams. The blocking admin, User:Phroziac, cited this arbitration request as evidence, but I read over it and it does not appear to support Phroziac's contention. User:David Gerard, one of the most experienced operators of CheckUser, said that the evidence was inconclusive at best [142] and that Ril did not appear to be CheeseDreams based on editing patterns. User:Sam Korn, an arbitrator, later said "As far as I'm concerned, -Ril- may be blocked as a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams. No case needed." However, he provided no evidence for this assertion. I am disturbed by this block since it not only appears to be out of process, but very little evidence of any kind has been provided to justify it. I'm trying really hard - albeit perhaps unsuccessfully - to assume good faith, but it seems quite suspicious that this block happened just after Ril strongly criticized the actions of Arbcom in creating the Clerk's office. Unless real evidence exists that this user is indeed a sockpuppet, I strongly urge an unblocking. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. The ISP evidence doesn't mean much either way. But I thought they were quite different because they have different styles of blowing their top. CheeseDreams appears to actually be batshit insane; -Ril- is basically lucid but can be somewhat brittle (to say the least) in conflict with others. SimonP disagrees and notes some curious stylistic similarities. I'm entirely unsure. I do think it's a pity -Ril- has basically gotten completely out of step with the Wikipedia community, because he does do some good stuff at length as an editor - David Gerard 10:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Why block for spurious sockpuppet accusations when you can just block him for being a hopeless and belligerant troll? Phil Sandifer 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what is trolling? Frankly, I've seen far too many occasions where trolling is effectively defined as any opinion that the person using the term doesn't like. Where does reasoned disagreement leave off and "trolling" begin? And are the people making the decisions against a user they strongly disagree with really detached enough to decide this fairly? The term in itself has become almost meaningless, just a smear word. Can someone please cite specific violations of policy on Ril's part that would justify this block? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because he's already had one ArbCom case, and does make good contributions. I see where you're coming from, though.--Sean Black (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez Phil, can you back that up with something tangible? I mean to read it, it comes across as a personal attack. For someone closely attached(for the present) to ArbCom, I know you must have other motivations for your characterization of another editor. I would hate to think that a member of the ArbCom Clerk Squad could harbour pre-existing biases. You don't do you? Hamster Sandwich 03:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to look very hard through his last six months of edits to find any contributions that could be considered usful efforts to improve the encyclopedia. - SimonP 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ril's centralized discussions on the scope and extent of Bible-related articles (e.g. individual verses) raise some important concerns. I think these are important contributions, whether you agree with the issues raised or not. In particular, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5 raises some interesting NPOV concerns that would be easy to miss otherwise. He also seems to have made some good edits relating to ancient mythology. As for his edits in the project namespace, they are unquestionably controversial, but I don't see anything there justifying an indefinite ban. Again, if someone can explain why this was done and cite specific evidence, it would go a long way towards alleviating my concerns. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ril or me? Phil Sandifer 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, but not 100% he meant Ril. Hamster Sandwich 03:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

SimonP brought the WP:RFAr case against Ril, so it's safe to assume that this is who he was referring to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it was originally formed as a reply to Sean. - SimonP 04:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't the block wait until more arb's commented? (this seems rushed) BrokenSegue 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- is a long-term major energy sink and needs to snap out of it. Immediately. ArbCom should have given him a snapping-out-of last time they had the opportunity, but opted to say "please change your signature" instead in one of their less impressive rulings. However, an indef block based on 'evidence' that turns out to be either inconclusive or insubstantial should not be left standing. I've lifted it. If someone wants to reimpose it for another reason, adn take responsibility for that reason, they are free to do so. I'm not interested in a block war, and I'm not criticising Phroziac particularly, who made the block while things were very fluid. -Splash^talk 03:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They have both edited from the largest ISP in the UK (BT). That is clearly not good proof that they are the same person. Secretlondon 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's lots and lots of circumstatial evidence, though it too is somewhat thin. Bascially, if someone feels up to it, they should propose a longer ban to the ArbCom and let them sort it out.--Sean Black (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few -Ril- and CheeseDreams edits to compare: [143] and [144], [145] and [146], [147] and [148], [149] and [150], [151] and [152]. - SimonP 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not really fair to -Ril-. When he's not in a conflict, he does edit well and productively - David Gerard 10:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User Ungodly Fonz has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Ungodly Fonz has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was a WoW impersonator. The move has been fixed. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:FYADLOL block

I've indefiniately blocked User:FYADLOL. Along with vandalism, his username is also inappropriate (an initialism for "Fuck Yourself And Die"). — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd already blocked him indefinitely for just being a vandal-only account. I wasn't aware of what the username stood for... -- Francs2000 03:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell 2

Would someone looking into this? [153]. Thanks. -- User:Docu

I'll get right on it. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) <-- :) :) -->

I've reverted. If the disruption is starting again, Greg, be aware that you may be blocked for longer this time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So did you actually *look* at it before deleting my comments or was this most recent jab at me completely untainted by a rational basis? --Gmaxwell 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Why can't we all just get along? :(-- Sean Black (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 03:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not strike out other people's votes. Secretlondon 03:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at your edits closely, Greg. Based on what I saw, I probably agree with the point you're making, but by striking out other people's votes and comments, you're editing disruptively. Please make your point on the talk page instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the need for a 3rd-party, totally biased mediator is sought, one who could never get a seat on the Mediation Committee or Mediation Cabal, becomes pressing... I also head a stupid investigatory association which is well renowened and has accomplished a great many things, many many things, but I'm too lazy to find and link it, sorry. As an aside, I'm pleased to see Sean Black (talk) expressing his feminine side. El_C 04:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you go casting aspersions on Sean's masculinity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of what demented philological abyss did aspersions come from (yes, was indeed forced to look it up). El_C 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

She would know, given our "close personal relationship" (cough)--Sean Black (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not entirely following you there, Mister (?) Sean Pink. Please exclaim at great length. El_C 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Happily. [154] [155] should be informative. I could say more, but there may be sensitive ears in the audience.--Sean Black (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Now El C's going to work himself up into a jealous frenzy again. I deleted the best worst of it, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, these things happen. People get jealous just looking at me. I'm irresistable that way.--Sean Black (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, my feminine side is the left. FYI.--Sean Black (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't fool me with quatsch about your feminine side. I've had up-close personal experience of that steaming testosterone. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't kiss and tell. Unless anybody asks, in which I case I'll email the photos. Incidentally, our sigs compliment each other rather nicely, wouldn't you say?--Sean Black (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All I know is there's going to be hell to pay tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oy! Get a room! Georgewilliamherbert 06:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more fun this way! :)--Sean Black (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Free drugs love! El_C 07:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is our love licenesed under the GFDL?--Sean Black (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PD, of course! El_C 08:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's permission only, and permission is denied. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not what you said before! (**rimshot**)--Sean Black (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck fairuse, both literally and literally. El_C 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also in the literal sense. And literally.--Sean Black (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a metaphor, analogy, allegory, or some piece of crap! El_C 08:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While continuously striking others' votes oughtta be blockable, he did violate 3RR and I've blocked him for that for 31 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone check the history there to make sure I did not screw the 3RR up (it looks like I might have), though I think the block should stay for striking other's comments. If others think he shouldn't be blocked, I won't object an unblock. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If an anonymous user did this, we'd warn them with a boilerplate template, and then block them if they continued. I don't see why an established user like Greg should get so much more slack. If anything, we should come down harder, since he's been here a long time and ought to know better than that. Note that Greg has since unblocked himself, in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I think that the block length ought to be increased as a consequence.threatened to unblock himself, but actually didn't. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

He's now threatened to use a sockpuppet. See [156]. Why do we put up with this crap? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg isn't an admin, so he can't unblock himself, Crotalus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize that. I thought he had been doing some deletions a while back, but apparently I was mistaken. Mea culpa. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was, too, actually. He has more or less promised sock use to avoid the block, and his striking others comments were innapropriate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I only count 3 reverts, 1, 2 and 3 Where is the fourth? (Not that the whole things isn't disruption) BrokenSegue 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So should I unblock and reblock for "disruption/striking others' comments" for the record, or should I just let my original (if flawed) rationale stand? Also, to be sure, does this block effect Mindspillage? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless Kat has a magic proxy, yes.--Sean Black (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

............ Shit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking the autoblocker will unblock the IP address, so others can edit from it if they want to (including Gmaxwell, of course, using another account). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked the IP address, but not the Gmaxwell account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just hope he's not stupid enough to use a sockpuppet again.--Sean Black (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The nastiness expressed here is disproportionate to the issue. --Tznkai 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell seems to have switched editing mode from 'polite and professional" to BOFH. Mindspillage tried reasoning with him, I tried reasoning with him. He politely points out that he's objectively getting 100 times as much useful work done now for the encyclopedia, even despite getting regularly blocked. Mindspillage has confirmed this apparently, and so simply has no grounds to argue with him rationally (because he won by logic :-P). I'm having some trouble arguing with his logic too. How DO you argue with that. Maybe there's something not quite right on the community side? Kim Bruning 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

He has a point. He is right. His methods are just wrong. I'd reckon he's smart enough to accomplish his goals and help the Project by staying in bounds. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The community is more important than any one editor. No one should get a pass on bad behavior on the grounds that they also make useful contributions. Imagine if we tried to apply such principles in the real world. Well, sometimes we do - college basketball and football is an example of this - and it generally doesn't lead to optimal results. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Kim, it's like this. Let's say I think another user has done a bad edit. It's much quicker and easier for me to simply revert their edit. I could use a tool to do it. The editor might be pissed off, but who cares? I am more productive that way. Or I could write them a note, discuss what change I want to make and why and go through the whole dreary being nice to other editors thing that just stands in Greg's way. But hang on! Those editors might waste their time on firing off notes to me, complaining at my rough treatment, and people who noticed my doing it might write big long messages to the AN and other places... and they wouldn't be so productive, would they? So what's it to be, we just throw civility out of the window and shit on each other because we think we're more "productive" that way or we stick to at least trying to make this a decent place to be? Grace Note 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is quite solid. Or would be. The thing is, you're assuming people were always civil to Gmaxwell first. After some particularly hard and unfair campaigning by erm, someone else who I actually also value very much, so I shan't name names, he decided to flip strategies. I'm pretty saddened that he's drawn the conclusions that he has, because I really really need his help in a lot of matters. :-/ Kim Bruning 06:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In this particular incidence Gmaxwell has been handled unfairly; namely, his comments were removed by people complaining that he was merely striking out comments made by others. It seems reasonable to remove the <s/>s around the particular votes, but not Gmaxwell's comments, with which there's nothing wrong. Berating him for repeatedly reverting while repeatedly reverting seems a tad unseemly, and as for the 3RR, as far as I'm concerned if someone is restoring comments like that they can do so 100 or 1000 times. Demi ^T/_C 06:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When someone defaces a page in this manner, the natural reaction is to revert to the last pre-defacement revision. In doing so, it was easy to overlook the fact Greg also added comments of his own (which I seriously doubt anyone intentionally removed). It was Greg's responsibility to restore just these edits (without continually disrupting the page by striking legitimate comments that he unilaterally deemed invalid). —David Levy 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's something not quite right on the community side? Yes, the problem with the community has been obvious for ages. Double standards. --Tabor 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me while I try to figure this one out... if I understand correctly...
  1. The Cat:Living people had a discussion to rename it on its talk page
  2. Someone figured "hey, process is more important than discussion" and threw the matter on WP:CFD for renaming
  3. The talk page discussion had a different outcome than the CFD discussion
  4. Gmaxwell struck all votes on CFD that came from people not involved in the talk page
  5. A revert war ensued, and Gmaxwell was blocked
• Is that correct? And if so, can I whack some people with WP:VIE? Radiant_>|< 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

DickyRobert again

I've just dropped a pretty massive range block on Sympatico.ca for the next 3 hours. Please leave this in effect... trying to see if this will stop dicky for the moment. There will likely be some collateral damage... the range is 65.95.0.0/16. Thanks for your patience and understanding...  ALKIVAR™ 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's this casual use of just slapping a rangeblock about that leads me to advocate switching them off at times. Rob Church (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

He was mass creating user accounts with my home phone number in them and vandalizing 1 article, changing ip then vandalizing another. This is not the first time such a large range block has been used to temporarily stop him. Both David Gerard and Kelly Martin have placed these large /16 range blocks on Sympatico for several hours to stop this.  ALKIVAR™ 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They shouldn't be casually, but sometimes they are indispensible. For instance, if an AOL anon vandal goes on a spree over dozens of articles (eg, the "category penis" vandalism of a few days ago), AOL's goofy round-robin IP address allocation means that a range block really is the only way to halt it (and it also means that we don't even have a way to leave a message on the vandal's talk page, since he doesn't have one, not that polite warnings would have helped). It should be used with care, but sometimes it's needed. In the above case, it might have been a bit unwise (I think someone requested or did a checkuser and he's moved around various IP ranges, no?). -- Curps 20:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Curps, I have personally been blocked six times...no, seven...because of your AOL range blocks. I use an ISP that is owned by AOL. I understand the frustration with AOL vandals, and there are lots of them, but, were I not an admin, I'd have been locked out. Let's not do any big range blocks for long periods on AOL. Try :15 or :30. Other than that, the collateral damage includes several admins. (I'm just the one who doesn't use AOL and will admit it.) Geogre 11:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More from Gastrich

Three new socks, HRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), LinkChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TonyT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have collectively violated 3RR on Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adding a link to Gastrich's site. I blocked the three of them for 24h, some might think they should just be indef-blocked. I semi-protected Kent Hovind since the socks are being created thick and fast; I listed it on the protected pages register. User:Cyde is also aware and involved. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing RFC on Jason Gastrich. --Cyde Weys 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ya don't say ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gazeebow Unit

Gazeebow Unit was deleted after an AFD and it was undeleted and immediately put on AFD, even though DRV consensus is spectacularily for keeping it deleted. Which process led to that happening? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV is (almost uniquely on Wikipedia, I believe) not a consensus-based forum. The content of the article, as edited by me shortly before nominating for AfD the second time, seemed to suggest that it was encyclopedic. I would have liked to see if we could get consensus on that on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've closed this and directed discussion back to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Gazeebow_Unit. Split and/or duplicated discussions are harmful. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I have overwritten your close and speedied it based on WP:CSD G4. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The process wonk in me says that you shouldn't have done that as you'd participated in the "discussion", but as we all seem to be doing whatever we want these days I won't complain. ^_^ Could we get {{deletedpage}} here? Or even {{NTSA}}?
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guess what? The article is undeleted again and the close undone! Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For latecomers, the logs. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   * 12:41, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored "Gazeebow Unit"
   * 12:25, 31 January 2006 Sjakkalle deleted "Gazeebow Unit" (Recreation of previously deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit)
   * 10:32, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway unprotected Gazeebow Unit (Second thoughts (I looked at older versions of the article))
   * 09:31, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway protected Gazeebow Unit (History undeletion for ongoing WP:DRV discussion [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
   * 09:30, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored "Gazeebow Unit"
   * 21:14, 30 January 2006 Zoe deleted "Gazeebow Unit" (inappropriate undeletion)
   * 04:21, 30 January 2006 DJ Clayworth restored "Gazeebow Unit"
   * 16:14, 29 January 2006 Cleared as filed deleted "Gazeebow Unit" (non-notable band)
   * 00:51, 26 January 2006 Splash deleted "Gazeebow Unit" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit)

I've re-re-closed the afd and pointed it at the DRV discussion again. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You can read more about this and other inappropriate premature closes of AfD discussions on wikien-l. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikien-l is not evidentiary. Most of us don't subscribe. The point is that this was an AfD. AfD decided. It went to VfU. VfU didn't support restoration, and then you went to war. If you or DJ Clayworth want the group discussed, do it in an article on the documentary. Until the group can pass the bar of encyclopedic value, it shouldn't be in our encyclopedia. "Our" means "we," which means the unwashed, inexpert mob deciding. What's more, that mob can even be wrong, and we should just live with the injustice. Geogre 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo writes to and reads wikien-l, and policy is discussed and announced there. You may not care to notice wikien-l, but it may care to notice you. It's part of the Wikipedia infrastructure; you can pretend it isn't, but that's you choosing to exclude yourself from the loop and nothing more.

If you don't want a firehose spewing into your mailbox, the web archive is quite usable — I'm a wikien-l admin and I usually read it from the web archive - David Gerard 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Further: as I noted on WT:AFD, if AFD/DRV don't want what they perceive as outside interference, then they need to get their house in order before the Foundation imposes a nonoptimum solution from above. They have good reason to be pissed off - see wikien-l - David Gerard 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to subscribe to Wikien-l. It is part of the official discussion process on Wikipedia. Policies have been decided on Wikien-l. You refer to the "unwashed mob", but I wouldn't say that this term applies to DRV. When the second AfD was closed, there was no consensus to delete, so the unwashed mob (apart from the three delete voters on the first AfD) hardly had a look-in. This article may not be undeleted, but it will be because of process, not consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Nandesuka 13:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony and David, in the past, a consensus has existed at AfD and DVR to ignore the mailing list as a source of authority. This presumably still obtains. If Jimbo wishes to change AfD, or anything, let him do it. If he changes AfD in the way I think you'd like him too, he'd lose my respect, but at least we'd all know that Wikipedia is really only an exercise in ignoring all rules, and including anything you folks like willy-nilly. Until Jimbo does this, vague intimations that the mailing list might bite AfD, in the manner of threats ("...Foundation imposes a nonoptimum solution from above. They have good reason to be pissed off - see wikien-l") are just empty posturing, and will be treated as such by sensible people. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one thing, not battling independent nation states. DRV may choose to ignore the list or the foundation, but the list or foundation are not then obliged to ignore DRV. Many AFD/DRV regulars are not happy with what they see as "outside interference", but then consider they have domain over all Wikipedia content and whether it stays or goes; compare this attitude to e.g. a troublemaking editor who just won't work well with others, even if their content is mostly good - David Gerard 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

David, if the Foundation wishes to exert itself, let it. You are not the Foundation. Intimating that you are, and that you have insight into it, is dishonest, to be frank. You may not like AfD, the mailing list may or may not (some evidence below suggest that you and Tony are misreading consensus there, as well as applying it wrongly), but you won't change it by acting like an overlord on matters over which you have no extraordinary authority. Jimbo may do as he likes, but you are not Jimbo. AfD lives as it is, till it changes itself, till there is a broad reform or till Jimbo changes it. Full stop. Saying "mailing list says X" does not implement X, does not support X well, and counterproductively annoys many people who otherwise don't care about X at all. Xoloz 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have a strong feeling on whether this article should stay or go, but the kind of wheel-waring shown above is IMO highly inappropriate, and Tony Siday's actions detaield above seem to approach a 3RR violation (four restoratuions in less than 28 hours). I should think that it would have been better for those who want such an article to exist to either incorporate the content into a larger article, or create a rewritten article (different enough not to fall under WP:CSD G4) which included as much aditional information on notability as is available and verifiable (with sources, of course). As to the mailing list, it think it would be better if all serious discussion leading to wikipedia policy decisions was conducted on-wiki. I can't see any good reason for it not to be, and I don't plan to subscribe to teh mailing list. I have read the web archives on occasion. I don't, however, consider anything there definitive untill it appears on-wiki. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Again? This is ridiculous. Tony just wants to be able to do whatever he feels like. Wheel warring as he has continued to do is abuse of admin tools. - Taxman ^Talk 16:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that saying "a consensus has existed at AfD and DVR to ignore the mailing list as a source of authority" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of broad discussion in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia. Discussions on Wikien-l, like it or not, do play a role in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.

Could you explain whom you were citing when you quoted that following words? "...Foundation imposes a nonoptimum solution from above. They have good reason to be pissed off - see wikien-l"? The words, and the punctuation, don't look like mine.

In reply to DEsiegel, I ask: would you really, seriously, characterize the above as wheel warring? I see only two restorations,and one of those was a straightforward history undelete. Please carefully examine the facts, lest you jump to hasty--and erroneous--conclusions.

Not subscribing to the mailing list is your personal choice, and is not a matter over which I need, or do, feel responsible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do call the above a wheel-war -- twice undeleting something recently deleted by another admin (and not the same one on each occasion), when the deletion was not by mistake, but in-process in accord with an AfD discussion and then CSD G4. I see no reason why you could not have continued to discuss this at DRV rather then undeleting. However it seems that i mis-read the logs above, and that you restored twice rather than four times, so I have struck out the relevant part of my comment above. This makes the warring rather less extreme, but i still say that this sort of thing is unwise. I would be within policy to re-delete under G4, but I will not do so at this time, as that would only escalate things. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This one is obvious. It was deleted by three different admins by the time you undeleted it the second time. If you play by the simple rules there is less stress and more time for editing for everyone. It's really simple. Don't undo admin actions unless they made a mistake that is very clear according to the policy or there has been a consensus established to undo the action. Anything else creates wheel wars. Very simple, effective, no real downside. Obvious choice. - Taxman ^Talk 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Whenever people say "look on the mailing list", I would appreciate it if they gave a URL to a specific mailing list post, or at least the title of that post. That would help people who don't follow the mailing list closely in finding it, just like we generally cite difflinks instead of telling people "hey, it's somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace". Radiant_>|< 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be helpful, yes. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a long-running discussion. Check the January archive and start middle-clicking - David Gerard 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the general issues involved with mailing list discussion: Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The words in question are not yours, and are David's, wholly appropriate since my comment addressed you both, and your views here, as often, are aligned. You might have noticed this yourself if you had read more carefully.

Each forum and page on WP, in practice, establishes consensus for itself. Barring a system-wide initiative (like an RFC, or an amending of policy through centralized discussion), each practical consensus governs its area. The mailing list makes rules for itself, and no one else, unless Jimbo says differently. If you fail to understand this, Tony, you have failed to notice how the encyclopedia actually operates.

At AfD/DRV, I further stipulate, an active consensus exists that the mailing list not only does not govern, but often gets things very wrong. AfD is free to ignore it. The mailing list is not policy, is not the 'pedia, and is not Jimbo. If editors in any forum wish to consider it poo, it is treated as poo for those purposes. Given your high regard for the mailing list, I suspect I would find its collective judgment flawed on many things, but I wouldn't know, as I choose to ignore it, and will continue to do so. AfD will, I imagine, likewise do so. Xoloz 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the mailing list and all the other forums. You seem to think of them aa fiefdoms, each with its own little patch, engaging in some kind of territorial fight. Doesn't work. The mailing list, for instance, is just one venus for a whole host of different issues, and its role is primarily as a conduit for broad discussion on matters such as, well, deletion policy. Nothing on the mailing list automatically overrules anything else, but it is a very good way to judge the mood of the wiki.

AfD and DRV are generally recognised, at the highest level of Wikipedia (and you thought it was just a utopian anarchy? hah!) to be out of control, flawed processes, and since you have cited David Gerard, who was in turn presenting the view of the Foundation, you're clearly aware of that. "I'm placing this here for discussion of real problems so that AFD won't have a solution imposed on it by the Foundation, because that's what's likely coming without some severe internal reform. They are pissed off" But as you say you don't subscribe to the mailing list so it doesn't matter. You can just go back to some little fiefdom or other and pretend it isn't happening. Right?

Incidentally you're right that David's opinion and mine are broadly similar. I have noticed that we tend to have similar thoughts on many things (I even spooked myself once by guessing which northern resort he was spending a short holiday in). That David here was presenting the view of the Foundation I find reassuring, but not surprising. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One would hope that after the userboxes fiasco people would have wised up. Kelly's unilateral actions, as necessary and well-intentioned as they were, have achieved nothing than to establish the damn things firmly. There is a forum for discussing deletion reform, and it's at Wikipedia:Deletion reform. If your arguments are any good, who knows, they may even sway the unwashed masses. Pilatus 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD appears to be very much in control. Not my problem if you object to the community controling things.Geni 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• From the mailing list, it appears that Jimbo and the board object to the nastiness of AFD pages if read by an outsider, especially by the subject of an article (since the pages turn up on google) and that the solutions proposed include (1) fixing robots.txt so that AFD doesn't google, (2) blanking AFD discussions about living people after conclusion, and (3) encouraging civility. I have not found any support for the claim that AFD needs to reform lest it have a reform forced upon it. Radiant_>|< 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As for me, Tony, I think that, although you and David believe you speak for the Foundation, you speak only for yourselves. On the questions of process, consensus, and generally any non-unilateral matters, you are so often wrong that your opinion is only worth rebuffing for the sport of it. You say AfD risks danger if it ignores you view, but I disagree. You and Mr. Gerard are eccentric, and (on this question) your view is seriously distorted. You claim that you two speak for the Foundation ("That David here was presenting the view of the Foundation I find reassuring, but not surprising"). I think that is laughable; let's see if the Foundation ever pulls through on David's threat: till then, I call you both full of hot air. You may and will cite the mailing list all you wish, but I will continue to treat these citations as irrelevant. Xoloz 22:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who made David a spokesperson for the Foundation? Where was that announcement made? And what does Tony Sidaway have to do with the Foundation? He couldn't even muster enough votes to make the ArbComm. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, no one did, and I didn't say I was. What I did say was that Jimbo was expressing his and the Foundation's strong concerns about the matter on wikien-l, that it would be much better if *FD got its own house in order because the Foundation is pissed off and about ready to impose a solution, good or not, and that if *FD/DRV regulars want to stay in the loop about such concerns then it seems to me it's up to them to read wikien-l — Jimbo evidently considers it the place to discuss such matters. Check these mails [ [157][158][159][160][161] and the ensuing threads. He is most concerned about the gross incivility (particularly to outsiders) accepted as a matter of course on *FD/DRV, and the immediate nomination of Category:Living people on CFD with no prior discussion whatsoever ... and the CFD's recreation three times.

Note that he is all for deleting the metric shitloads of garbage that get put into Wikipedia and loves the people who bother to deal with this crap. It's not a question of a deletion mechanism, it's problems with the current deletion mechanism and its culture. Also, it's one Wikipedia, not individual warring fiefdoms.

I also found interesting, given the lynchmob attempting to gather with pitchforks on this page, Jimbo's view on undeletion by any admin and this quote - David Gerard 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review my blocking of Simp123457

I've blocked Simp123457 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for vandalism and suspected sockpuppetry. I'm still new at this, and a bit unsure about this particular case, so I'd appreciate comments on this.

This is a new user who did some minor vandalism to Brockman, was warned once with a combined {{test1}}/{{test4}} by Brockmanah, and then vandalized User:Brookie/Articles created or worked on. Their last edit was two hours ago. Based on that alone I might not have blocked them yet, but it seems highly likely that this is the same person as Burman 9 (talk · contribs), who was blocked by Brookie at almost the same time as Simp123457 started editing. For using a sockpuppet to circumvent a block, I felt that a corresponding block on the sock was in order. Did I make the right call? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The edits are clearly vandalism (as opposed to simple tests, newbie mistakes, or "bad faith" edits), plus there's a bunch of them, so a 24hrs block is reasonable. Phils 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

209.202.105.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) needs to be blocked -- they've been warned multiple times. I'm completely blanking on the page I'm actually supposed to be putting this on -- maybe it needs to be added to the list at the top?--SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. You were probably looking for WP:AIV, but posting here is OK too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was the page. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And it's the first link you see after you click on "to report vandalism" above. *sigh*--SarekOfVulcan 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Policy Discussion

Given some of the comments above regarding mailing list discussion, and some of my own thoughts on the matter that have been brewing for some time, I've opened up Wikipedia:Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful. Feel free to comment. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read point #6 on User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. -- SCZenz 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the mailing list is a viper's pit full of poison and bad faith, and most people would do well to avoid it in order to retain their sanity and their stomachs to continue on the project. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the mailing list is not official Wikipedia discussion. I.e. announcing on the mailing list that you'd like to create position of Grand Poobah of Hagiography (it's mine! I am the Grand Poobah of Hagiography!) doesn't mean you get to avoid the useless blather here on Wikipedia before you create the position. Some of the list subscribers need to be reminded of that when they say, "See my 20 screen diatribe on Wikien-L for proof of how well we did this." Geogre 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't participate in the mailing list and IRC. I would really prefer if all Wiki-related discussions took place on the Wiki. I think such off-wiki discussions, where not everyone is able to participate, inevitably creates an in-group, which is I think unhealthy for our 'pedia. Paul August ☎ 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity Jimbo keeps initiating important policy discussions on wikien-l, then - David Gerard 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Licinius & User:60.225.202.61

These two are by there own admission the same person. Now due to my edit here he feels that I vandalised the Oyster Bay, New South Wales article. After multiple comments on User talk:CambridgeBayWeather, User talk:Tyson2k, User talk:24.85.245.200, User talk:60.225.202.61 history and User talk:Licinius history the user left what I and others (including another administrator) felt were personal attacks on his user page here. They also said to Tyson2k and myself that they had an administrator that is sympathetic to their case. While I suspect that it's nothing more than a bluff I was wondering if there was another administrator involved and if so could then contact me via my talk page as soon as possible. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My references to CambridgeBayWeather's vandalism extends far past that original post as he has vandalised many further of my posts and I took exception to the assumption he made that I had not written the article in good faith. It is accurate and I implore all Shire People to review the differences and say which one fits into the category of Wikipedia as they know the area and what it is about. Licinius

p.s. I never admitted it but stated it.

I'm not sure what vandalism that I have done to your posts. So, here are the reversions (other than the Oyster Bay edits) that I have made to your posts. Western Suburbs Magpies, which was reverted by another editor prior to me and by others after me as seen in the history. On this I restored your removal of the link to the Sydney race riot. On the 2005 Sydney race riot I perceived your edits to be POV. Here I restored the tags that you deleted. This vandalism on my part was to restore the article after you had blanked it. On this user page I restored the material you deleted. There is also this, where you deleted a valid link. And of course my worst offence was to remove the personal attacks from your user page which were also removed by other editors. This does not include the list of edits that were reverted by other editors nor did I revert the removal of the comments that were left on your talk pages at 60.225.202.61 and Licinius.

In going through your edits I found this where you broke two valid links and I will be reverting. Also, looking at your edits, especially your comments on users talk pages, here, here and here, can only give people the wrong impression that you are trying to intimidate other users. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)