Following on from #User:Ariobarza above, I am also concerned about the behaviour of Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs). I clashed with this editor earlier this year over his promotion of conspiracy theories on Muhammad al-Durrah. Since then I've disengaged from anything to do with him. Unfortunately he has chosen to do the opposite. He now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute. He has now done this on with least five articles relating to ancient history that he's never edited before I edited them - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris. He appears to be systematically watching my edits and involving himself in any dispute in which I'm involved. He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" [1] and of being part of a "campaign" [2] to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history [3]. (I've never heard of such a perspective and have no idea what it would look like). Other editors have expressed concern and disagreement with his tactics and comments [4], [5], [6]. Instead of responding to these concerns, he blew them off. [7] He has now turned up on the AfD mentioned above (which I didn't start), where he was specifically canvassed by Ariobarza, the editor who created the article in question. Ariobarza has presented a very hostile view of my involvement to encourage Tundrabuggy to get involved. [8] Tundrabuggy duly turned up to support Ariobarza in the AfD, in which I had !voted to delete the article. This is looking like a systematic feud on Tundrabuggy's part, and it needs to stop or be stopped. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly since Tundrabuggy has contributed nothing useful or indeed informed. From my experience of Battle of Opis he is acting purely to harass ChrisO. It's not acceptable. Ariobarza etc at least have a genuine interest in the subject: I do not think this is the case with Tundrabuggy. Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much for your perspective Moreschi. I don't remember seeing you at the Battle of Opis lately. Were you one of the canvassed ones? Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to ChrisO) This is an unfounded accusation against an opposing editor, with whom you're involved in an ongoing dispute. As Tundrabuggy pointed out, "all the articles above are intimately related to each other, and thus to be involved in one is to be involved in them all." ([9]) Khoikhoi 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariobarza ... if you want to strike your comments on this page, then I recommend using <s> </s> rather than deleting them like you did to these Noticed they were re-added a few edits later-t BMW c- 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly unfounded. I quoted what Tundrabuggy himself has said: he has already made it clear that he's following me around because he believes I'm pursuing some sort of political agenda and he's seeking to oppose that. That's a nonsensical line to take. It's also a completely inappropriate reason to pursue an editor. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, Khoikhoi, are you an uninvolved or involved party? Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly involved, since he has been actively supporting one side - Tundrabuggy's, essentially - in four of the five pages I listed above. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and your comment proves my point that these pages are all part of the same dispute, and I have been involved in these pages for the same reason. Tundrabuggy has not done anything out of the ordinary here. This is the same dispute which has spanned across several pages. Khoikhoi 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes:

1. I'm trying to avoid ANI's but was asked to review/participate on this post.
2. Just about everyone who commented thus far, myself included, are somehow involved. It's a bit of a shame to see the same "old faces".
3. Speaking as a person who knows what it's like to be followed and harassed by fellow Wikipedians, I'd like to try and keep things in proper perspective. i.e. I'm not sure I see much more than a somewhat 'new to wiki-policy' editor responding to a canvassing note. Has there been anything new other than the AfD within the past 10-14 days? Tundrabuggy has been active on several articles which were not mentioned, and to be frank, I considered his contribution to the Battle of Jenin talk page a bit of a relief considering some of the highly provocative statements made by fellow editors.
4. Considering my (mostly ignored) proposition to both Tundra and Chris to break off from active disputes was made a bit under a month ago and that there doesn't seem to be anything new, I would personally recommend a canvass related warning to relevant editors.
5. My apologies to everyone involved for meddling in.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have not read the "Ariobarza" section above this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to emphasize that KhoiKhoi is absolutely right, that all of these articles are (intimately) related to each other and have spidered to one another through the talk pages. As one of ChrisO's diffs pointed out, all are related by virtue of time-period -circa 450 BCE- subject and place. The seemingly obscure article, Kaveh Farrokh, is related as an historian. The idea that ChrisO is being wiki-stalked is out in left field, frankly. As for Ariobarza, I thought (s)he had tried consciensiously to make her points on the talk page before making small edits in the article. Then when she tried to write an article herself, before it is even finished, ChrisO and friends vote to speedily delete it. A sympathetic admin might have steered her into writing on her own name-space and helped her in making a better article. What is gained by doing a speedy delete? Nothing except [more] bad feelings are generated. That is why I voted against deletion. At least give someone a chance. I didn't vote the way I did to vote against ChrisO (as part of some [imagined] "systematic feud") but to vote for Ariobarza. I hope the distinction is clear. And @ Jaakabou -- I do appreciate your input. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the heightened sensitivity between you and ChrisO, I would suggest that you try and avoid even the impression of following him to future articles - there's plenty of articles out here. Also note that responding to WP:CANVASS notes is frowned upon. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy, I've already pointed out on the articles for deletion page that this is an ordinary Articles for Deletion process, not a WP:speedy delete. And I've been telling Ariobarza since June that he needs to stop adding original research to articles and to stop creating articles with no references. He's had far more chances than most editors get. And when you take part in an articles for deletion policy, you shouldn't be 'voting' for or against an editor but stating your views based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Tundrabuggy, you have followed Chris0 around. It stands out like dog's balls. Anyone with commonsense and good faith would raise an eyebrow to see how you followed Chris0 to the five articles after the dispute with him over the MDurrah article. The latter is an I/P article. The Cyrus articles have nothing to do with politics (though you edit there as though Chris0's putative POV on I/P issues influences his judgement on Persian battles). He has a professional background in ancient history, you apparently don't. What are the odds (wiki brims with mathematicians) that it is a mere coincidence that, after two editors had a conflict over a contemporary I/P article, on an obscure incident, the one worsted by technicalities that favour form over substance, moves on to work over several articles on Persian history that require a rather involved understanding of assessing abstruse sources, requirements he was trained in academically under a major authority in ancient history, only to find that, by pure chance, his whilom adversary shows up to edit against him over exactly the same range of articles? Almost zero. It has nothing to do with chance. To ask people seriously to believe that this is mere coincidence is a charming piece of chutzpah, nothing more. From an outside perspective, it looks as though your 'victory' in one article ran to your head, and you thought it worthwhile seeing if you could follow it up against the same antagonist. This is harassment.

You show, unlike Chris0, no technical understanding of, or informed knowledge about the historical evidence, evince no record (I stand corrected if wrong)of a long-standing intrinsic passion for the subject, but you are very strong in making 'political' assessments of the former editor's ostensible POV. That is wikistalking, and you do it by siding with, or defending, editors of little experience, nationalistic in approach, with whom Chris0 clashes on quite straightforward questions of RS. You appear in many edits, to me at least, to be a POV-headhunter, unaware of your own. That is your right. Nothing of course will be done about this, since wikistalking is quite commonplace. People enjoy niggling at others, especially when they've won one suit. Far too many editors don't contribute substantively to articles, but hang round to monitor POVs. You, at least here, are doing precisely that.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Finally some commentary with brains! Nishidani has it in one. Now could someone please do something about this? Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objections to topic bans on disruptive editors from articles; clarification: I'm not sure if this is the current state on the articles ChrisO and Tundrabuggy are comunicating on since last I looked was almost a month ago.

AS AN OFFTOPIC, I'd use this forum to note that I got a bit of a DE issue (myself) on Land of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with 2 editiors strongly promoting a personal misunderstanding of the Likud charter as a must be listed in the lead. Or as one of them put it in his revert edit: "It is important for article NPOV". Could someone please do something about this?

p.s. Tundra, Doug Weller is correct that !voting is not made on personal perspective but should be based on (preferrably also linked to) existing policy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) wikilink 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy, would you voluntarily stop following Chris O, or would you like an admin (!me) to make a ruling? Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the AfD vote, I thought the article had some merit and that it should be allowed to take shape. It was not part of any "feud" other than that that ChrisO would like to make it. Re what is called "canvassing," it appears that that complaint is only going to apply to me, and not ChrisO who has canvassed most of the contributers on this page. I have canvassed exactly zero. I am the 4th contributer to these articles (the Cyrus-related ones) that ChrisO has tried to take some kind of wiki-lawyering action against. The others have apparently been intimidated sufficiently to no longer contribute to these articles at all. I did approve of the effort to have a content issue resolved with mediation, though it is not clear where that went. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's a "no". Tan | 39 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No this simply doesn't the mustard as a serious reply, Tundrabuggy. (a) Specialist qualifications are not required in Wiki for contributing to articles. At the same time, the encyclopedia is particularly happy if it can enjoy expertise, esp. in difficult fields. ChrisO has been professionally trained as an historian, in the area of antiquity. We don't know your background, but from following the edits, it does not appear that you have a formal grounding in the field of the history of antiquity. (To the contrary (need proof?), your remarks elsewhere strongly suggest you lack even an elementary understanding of historical method). That said, the rules are that you are equally entitled to edit there and anywhere else but (b) you both had a conflict of some considerable intensity over MDurrah. Chris0 left that, and, if I recall, on request, went to the Cyrus Cylinder and associated articles, as a duck returns to water, to his 'proper element'. Soon after, you turned up, and sided with editors who disagreed with him. We are not asked to assess, as you intimate, the merits of that conflict. We have been asked whether, in turning up, after your MD 'victory', to an area where he has expertise and you do not, you came there by pure coincidence, or by design? Indeed, you have, in your reply, as elsewhere, earlier, snubbed requests to clarify what appears to be a patent example of adversarial stalking. The gravaman of the charge is you have stalked ChrisO, on his natural terrain, in an area you show no particular knowledge of, immediately after the MDurrah conflict with him. He left, perhaps, to adapt an idiom from Sophocles, to browse in solitude his thoughts on quieter pastures, and finds you moseying up again to ride shotgun, herding his ideas, barely after the bulldust from your shootout with him at the OK corral had settled. So explain what you're doing there, and why your reappearance on five consecutive pages he was editing is merely random, against all mathematical odds. Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nishidani, we know nothing about ChrisO's qualifications, since "ChrisO" is an anonymous username. If ChrisO decides he wants to publicly identify himself, then we'll be able to ascertain his expertise. Lacking that, it is inappropriate to speculate about these matters, or to claim that he has an expertise that other anonymous userids lack. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose 'we' will now have to open up a section, 'Who can prove Nishidani is not a liar', while studiously ignoring the point, documented in the diffs, that Tundrabuggy subscribes to what can only be called a fringe theory redolent of the hermeneutics of paranoid suspicion. He has intimated that all editing on the Middle East, from articles about Sumer to Sozomenos, is subject to suspicions of partisanship that reflect on the contemporary Israeli-Palestine conflict. It is this absolutely bizarre statement that set the bells ringing for me. Anyone who subscribes to this lunatic theory should not be editing articles on ancient near Eastern history, apart from considerations of incompetence. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nishidani, we know nothing about ChrisO's qualifications, since "ChrisO" is an anonymous username. If ChrisO decides he wants to publicly identify himself, then we'll be able to ascertain his expertise. Lacking that, it is inappropriate to speculate about these matters, or to claim that he has an expertise that other anonymous userids lack. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Wiederholungszwang in the technical literature.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Nishidani, I urge you to read my earlier responses as these are not "merely random" pages but all very clearly and obviously related, and it shouldn't take a formal grounding in history to realise this. It seems to me that had you been following this "dispute" closely, you would have been able to see this as well, unless of course you are one who has been recruited as support for ChrisO, in which case in a cursory look you might have missed it. Nor, as you have noted, are such formal qualifications required to contribute, to read or be able to understand the source material referenced, much of which is available either on Amazon or on Google books. Now to the point that my editing of these related pages is somehow related to my "victory" as you call it, regarding the MD conflict, I would simply say that I cannot even imagine how you would consider a victory an event that dragged my wiki reputation and others' through endless wiki accusations, taking I don't know how many hours of life to defend against, even to the point of one water-carrier trying to get another uninvolved administrator recalled... it was endless. No user would want a repeat of that kind of "victory". Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarification. I did not say the pages were random. I said you turning up, straight after the MaD incident, on five interconnected pages your erstwhile adversary was editing on obscure episodes in Persian history, cannot be coincidental, or random. I find misconstrual of the obvious offensive, Tundrabuggy: it is called wikilawyering.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question. You now have several people, not nobodies like myself, but administrators, asking you: 'why, immediately after the Mohammad al-Durrah dispute, where Chris0 was sanctioned to your editorial advantage, did you turn up on five pages where Chris0 had begun to edit, dealing with obscure events in Persian history?' Everything else is waffle. Either this is a one-off cosmic freak occurrence, warranting investigation by Pascalian mathematicians and a wiki page itself for the advent of miracles in probability theory, or you were and are wikistalking. I've asked you to explain this bizarre coincidence three times. Three times you have rambled on about other things. Not to answer it is, in my book, a tacit admission that your appearance there comes from trailing him, to a purpose. Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy has already made it clear that he sees this as an ideological conflict. Note his comments that he thinks I'm pushing a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Persian history [10]. He seems to have no interest in ancient history as such - he's not contributed anything to the articles other than sniping at my edits - but he seems to think he has to act as some sort of "watchdog" to push back against my edits where they conflict with his ideological views. This is, of course, completely inappropriate behaviour. I'm not pursuing any kind of ideological agenda, though he seems to view everything through the prism of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a very unhealthy approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tundrabuggy doesn't seem to be addressing the central concern raised in this section, which is: did Tundrabuggy start contributing to articles on ancient Persian history because he was continuing a preexisting conflict with ChrisO? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Furthermore, the allegation that there's such a thing as a pro-Palestian perspective on ancient Persian history is bizarre. This kind of ideological perspective is bad enough on I/P articles, it doesn't need to be imported into ancient history articles. I think Tundrabuggy ought to just step away from this topic area. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested before that we need to crack down on this sort of politicisation of ancient history. Modern Greek/Macedonian nationalist feuding being projected into the distant past in our articles is bad enough, but this is ridiculous. It's a clear violation of WP:BATTLEFIELD. --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least understand modern Greek/Macedonian feuding over ancient history, since it's a fundamental issue of national identity for them, but as you say, it's just bizarre to project the I/P conflict onto ancient Persia and Babylonia. I have no idea what a "pro-Palestinian nationalist" POV of that period would even look like. Some of Tundrabuggy's comments on Talk:Battle of Opis (see [11]) suggest that he is being influenced by a literalist reading of the Bible/Torah, which portrays Cyrus in complimentary terms as the liberator of the Jews. He appears to believe that I'm trying to "undermine" Cyrus. Khoikhoi appears to believe the same (and perhaps for the same reasons) - see Talk:Cyrus cylinder#Tags. There may be some sort of Jewish fundamentalist undercurrent here as well. They are both currently tag-teaming to remove sourced info that apparently conflicts with their POV [12], [13]. Not helpful behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "it's just bizarre to project the I/P conflict onto ancient Persia and Babylonia". It's ludicrous, especially since an equally valid (i.e. irrelevant) accusation of being "anti-Israeli" could be made against those promoting the opposite view. Given the current tensions between modern Israel and Iran, "pro-Persian" could be interpreted as "anti-Zionist". --Folantin (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules on wikistalking, to my brief knowledge, are hardly ever the object of administrative action, since it is intrinsically hard to prove. It is also true that far too much niggling for technical advantage is one unfortunate consequence of the rule book's articles. All editors with minimal experience will have abundant anecdotal evidence of odd coincidences on pages they edit, of people wandering in to edit, not the article, but, apparently, to resume a conflict begun on some other, often unconnected page. In my own interactions with Tundrabuggy, I have nothing to complain about. He readily accepted a correction of a confused remark he made about the circumstances of Mussolini's death. Sign of a responsive editor. We exchanged views on the Nahum Goldmann page. But I'm afraid this particular matter is serious. It may be inexperience, it may be overconfidence, it may be an inner conviction that, in the I/P area, Chris0 is biased, and therefore must be watched. But I doubt whether he will ever convince anyone that it was pure happenchance that he turned up on the 5 Persian pages Chris0 was editing, after the Mohammad al-Durrah episode, simply because he too happens to have an abiding interest in Cyrus. Jehochman made a decent suggestion, and I think Tundrabuggy should take it to heart. Admit this has, at the least, the strong appearance of an impropriety, and refrain from editing historical articles on the ancient Near Eastern history for a while. That restores the conditions for renewing a bona fides that is now under a shadow. No administrative action need be made, if a simple unilateral gesture to reassure those who are troubled by this incident is taken. There is a certain honour in admitting an error. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's an editor who edits only for the purpose of following me around, insulting me, and reverting me. I'll tell you what, if that other editor is blocked, then I'll take the suggestion of blocking Tundrabuggy more seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name him, provide the diffs, and if the evidence is strong, I would add my name to blocking him, whoever he is. I'm not calling, by the way, for Tundrabuggy to be blocked. I am asking that he stop dragging fantasies of a contemporary I/P agenda into articles on antiquity that have no bearing on Israel, and to lay off being a proxy in a some administrator's attempt to game the system, by tracking Chris0.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are asking how I happened to get involved in the Cyrus Cylinder article, it is really quite simple. There was a discussion on Elonka's talk page sometime around Sept 8th [14] on this issue and I commented on it [15] [16] and [17]. I was actually motivated by the response of another univolved user Arcayne who made a contribution here [18] and whose point I agreed with. An administrator, (not Elonka) recognizing my interest in Jewish history, wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the page and its Talk page, and asking if I had any associated references. After careful reading of the article and talk page, {see: [19]} I saw what I considered WP:UNDUE and I contributed my first post on the TALK 13th Sept [20] to that effect. I did my first edits on the article on some 10 days later. [21], adding a reference [22], and generally tried to make the article better. As I have explained earlier, this subject has tentacles that stretch through numerous other articles (Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Nabonidus etc) dealing with the same/similar subject matter, some of which I have edited and ChrisO has not -- ie the Nabonidus article. This really has nothing to do with any feuds with ChrisO. It is merely an area in which I have an interest. Other of the articles I work on have nothing whatever to do with him, as I am sure there are other places ChrisO edits where I do not. It is not accurate to say that I "followed" ChrisO anywhere. I know my own motives, and they are targeted to the benefit of Wikipedia, not toward antagonizing any particular editor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is called shooting oneself in the foot, or, though this is not a court of law, 'turning state's evidence'. You contradict yourself, and your explanation only underlines the point Chris0 and others raise.

You say (a) you have an 'interest in Jewish history' and then that (b)the five articles Chris was editing cover 'an area in which (you) have an interest'. The five articles deal only very marginally with Jewish history, if at all (the Battle of Opis? I've never read a mention of it in several volumes on the History of the Jews I have in my library). You then admit that your interest in this area arose from (c) Arcayne's note to Elonka, which was silly in its wildly semi-paranoid assertion that

'Some of these articles - esp. the Cyrus Cylinder article weigh heavily upon the questions of Israeli-Palestinian discussions (notably, the repatriation of the Jews to their homeland, used by some as proof of Jewish rights to populate the area).'

I.e. Arcayne made an absurd suggestion that Chris's editing on ancient Persian history was motivated by some political bias against Israel. The 'reductio ad absurdum' is obvious. If after moving on from the I/P area, I were to edit Chinese history (given my qualifications as an Orientalist), someone who tracks me on I/P articles might start reverting or controverting me on the Han historian Sima Qian because Jews are thought to have begun settlement in China in that dynastic period.

To your credit, while Arcayne's arcane suspicion gave you the 'motivation', you didn't act on it.

You then say some anonymous administrator tipped you off some days later (because you weren't sufficiently motivated?) to look at the Cyrus Cylinder article.

'An administrator, (not Elonka) recognizing my interest in Jewish history, wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the page and its Talk page, and asking if I had any associated references.'

Here lies a great impropriety, not ‘’directly’’ ascribable to yourself. You have unwittingly fingered an administrator for the irresponsibility at work here. The reasons are straightforward ones.

Whoever the administrator was (I don't think anyone cares), the suggestion (s)he made was improper, (a) given the well-known conflictual relationship between you and Chris0, to prod you to go to articles he was editing, in his natural area of interest and qualification, was an clear invitation to open those articles up to personal enmities or antagonism. (b) Of the hundreds if not thousands of Jewish editors around who have a natural interest in the history of their people (and it is the most natural thing in the world to be interested in own's own ethnic history), why should that administrator think that you of all people have a particular competence in ancient Persian history? There are numerous editors in here with magnificent linguistic talents, who read Hebrew and Aramaic, who are deeply familiar with the intricacies of Jewish literature, and who are engaged in writing pages on Jewish antiquities. To my knowledge, you do not have these gifts (correct me if I am mistaken). Therefore the administrator was not suggesting you go there because of some recognized expertise in ancient history, Biblical studies, and the recondite intricacies of Persian history. He or she made that private suggestion improperly, to not write 'maliciously'. There is nothing in your wiki record, and in your edits to those pages after you joined Chris0, that indicates your informed suitability to edit articles on ancient Persian history. If one looks at Arcayne's comments, and your follow-up, where you both suggest there is some obscure link of a POV kind between I/P articles and Persian history in 539BC, one twigs to the game, and it is a dangerous one. I.e., that you were emailed because of your 'expertise' in confronting pro-Palestinian POVs, which were manically suspected of polluting wiki articles on ancient history not bearing to any notable degree on Jewish history. Once there you assumed an oppositional role. This is not to say you should agree with Chris0's edits, which are challengeable, as are everybody's. It is to state the obvious. That you transferred the adversarial relationship you had over an I/P article to an article on Ancient History, independently of the merits of Chris0's many contributions to those 5 articles. That cannot be coincidental either.

So while your reply gets you slightly off the hook (you were emailed by an admin suggesting you might look at those articles), you and the administrator reattach yourselves to it. You may not, under this reconstruction you make, have followed Chris0: you followed an anonymous administrator's suggestion to follow him,(an exquisite prevarication) to go an edit pages where he certainly does have the kind of competence wiki ideals asks for (ancient history, classical languages), a competence you lack.

You did so fully aware, as also the administrator must have been, of the inherent confrontational possibilities your presence there risked creating. The administrator could not have been unaware of your conflict with Chris0, nor your expressed sympathy with the view (Arcayne's) that all wiki articles on Middle and Near Eastern history can be construed as reflecting heavily on I/P pages, and thus under suspicion for subtle POV stacking. It is, by your own implicit admission, wikistalking, though by proxy. But you went there wittingly, as though under a semi-official authorization from administration.

I/P articles are notoriously idiotic areas where only masochists or POV warriors thrive. A pity, but the nationalist obsessions are too strong to bring these pages to a mere semblance of NPOV. But that now the infection of tactical biasing seen there is to be extended to, potentially, all articles dealing with the Ancient Near East, one cannot but feel disenchanted.

I have seen in the past two days several lamentable cases of extremely poor POV editing by people who know nothing of the subjects. I have mostly not intervened, precisely because to do so might have the odour of counter-stalking an I/P editor who gives a strong appearance of stalking me. (Jewish terrorism, for example (See Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists). No mention of the Irgun there, because the article defines Jewish terrorism as 'religious' , ergo, the many books that cite the Irgun as a Jewish terrorist organization cannot be used, because the major groups were secularists. Clever gaming of the article by that strategic use in the lead definition of the qualifying adjective 'religious', but completely unencyclopedic, and wholly partisan. People who do not correct errors, but only hang round to defend a POV or prosecute what they consider someone else's should not edit encyclopedias). Attempts by other parties to make the article to wiki standards fail by immediate reversion. One watches, as so often, in silence and leaves the mess, to avoid possible charges of wikistalking. All of us must have many such experiences. One should preferably step into neglected pages to avoid this suspicion, unless invited as someone with specific, recognized ability for area knowledgeability and competence. When the bait was hung before you, you failed to avoid the obvious implication of conflict of interest with the encyclopedia’s aims, i.e. writing to the article, not writing against a known adversary who is recognized for his competence in that area (many of the primary sources on Persian history are in classical Greek, and Chris0 is a classicist). You didn't hold back, but accepted the challenge, having declared your belief that anti-Israel-POV gaming is part of all ancient history articles where a Jewish connection might be present. Blame the admin concerned, but not to recognize the risk was a failure of judgement on your part and tantamount to wikistalking. Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction here. The Battle of Opis was one of the connections from the original article the Cyrus Cylinder. That finally went under content-dispute resolution, though it is not clear how that has been resolved as yet. Regarding Arcayne's comment, it simply motivated me to comment, as I did, including finding a source to support it. It is not necessarily the case that administrator was aware of the earlier (editing) conflict between ChrisO and myself, since (s)he (I am not sure myself) was not involved in it in any way. I am not sure it was all that well-known throughout Wiki. I did not edit for some time for the very reasons that you have brought up, simply read and watched, and perhaps I should not have edited since ChrisO was involved there, but I did so for honorable reasons; these were the reasons supported by others on the TALK pages [23][24][25][26][27] (though obviously not all) and there was nothing inherently wrong with having done so. It is better for the encyclopedia that articles read in a balanced and neutral way. That was (and continues to be) my only purpose. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hate to press this, and I will admit my bias. I don't edit articles I haven't read up on and (2) I have a degree in classical Greek, and can see where much of Chris0's edits are coming from, since they reflect the same training I had. I think having people with this background working on articles dealing with classical antiquity a huge boon to the project, and I dislike seeing the equanimity of a scholar troubled by piddling charges of bias, when he is on his own terrain, and the critic is a raw outsider with some generic curiosity. We are all biased. Only some are trained to be aware of it, while most are used to seeing it in other people.

You haven't shown the slightest familiarity with the historiography of antiquity, have no qualifications in the area, are taken by a risible Montypythonesque fringe theory about I/P implications in the battle of Opis, and followed Chris0 there under advice from an anonymous admin. To say now that the admin may not be aware of the earlier conflict is disingenuous. For there is absolutely not a skerrick of evidence in your editing record to suggest to any admin that you in particular would have useful indeed distinctive (compared to any of a few dozen Jewish editors here) abilities to review the complex historical evidence on the Cyrus articles. The only imaginable motivation for such administrative advice is that of gaming the system on Cyrus articles, and building numbers to engage in POV wars, where they are least appropriate. The editor who contacted you, by your own admission, must have known two things. Chris was editing Cyrus articles, (since the admin who drew your attention to them must have been following the edits there) and your record, since he hardly picked your name out of a hat. There is absolutely no trace in your prior record that you would be qualified to assess and contribute to Cyrus articles. There is an abundant amount of evidence in your immediate prior record that you had a substantial conflict with Chris0 on Mohammad al-Durrah. The conclusion is obvious, or otherwise some very weird people, with phenomenally quixotic mental associations that privilege the aleatory over rational connections, have been elected to administrative functions.

You made a naive remark on the Bible as an historical source, implying that it has a myth component and an historical component. Strip away the former, and you are left with the latter. This was a respectable view sometime from the late 1830s onwards for a good part of the 19th century. No historian of contemporary repute would say that, without very attentive qualification. For myth itself is an index of an historical mentalité, is itself subject to the stresses of historical change, while what 'historical' facts we might have are not 'objective' but traces in earlier documents, with their POVs, that have to be deconstructed hermeneutically in order to (a) ascertain the mind and cultural set of the author(s) and (b)deduce how this cast of perspective influenced their representations of events we can only know by inference from the texts (a vicious circle), or by cross-reference to independent archeological evidence of a corroborative character. Classicists are trained in these subtleties of reading, and, with regard for example, to the 'propaganda' quarrel, all ancient historians, biblical or classical, are propagandists for a particular world-view, political perspective, cultural outlook, ethnic interest, class bias, etc. etc. That is why, ideally, unless one is well-trained in how to sieve through the labyrinthine intricacies of source evaluation, generic amateurish participation carries risks. It is hard enough for scholars to sort this out, without someone with a vague interest in 'things Jewish' to rush at a series of articles and challenge systematically someone who, at least, is trained to evaluate this kind of complexity in the evidence. I've nothing personally against you. I think your behaviour in this stresses an editor who has gifts you lack. They are relatively few and far between, people who combine advanced linguistic and historical training, and Wiki needs every last one of them. POV sleuths are tuppence a dozen, and generally (not referring to yourself but the problem in I/P articles) fit David McLellan's description of an ideologist, someone who can see everybody's ideology but his own. Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called logorrhea in the technical literature. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It warms my heart you've finally learnt to spell the word.Nishidani (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's unpack this a bit. I got involved in this series of articles following a general request for input from Dbachmann here [28]. From Dbachmann's comments, I was expecting some backlash from Iranian nationalists who idolise Cyrus the Great. I was not expecting a Jewish nationalist/fundamentalist backlash, though of course I knew about Cyrus's reputed liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. In editing these articles, I've done nothing more than reflecting faithfully and accurately what mainstream historians say.

Tundrabuggy has acknowledged being canvassed by an unnamed administrator. I have a pretty good idea who this was and I know for a fact that the same person has canvassed other editors, who he thought would be on his side, to support him - some of those canvassed haven't been very happy about it. Tundrabuggy has never previously shown any interest in ancient Persian history. On the other hand, as his contributions show, he has been highly active on articles of interest to Israeli politics. In fact, he joined Wikipedia as a single purpose account to push a conspiracy theorist POV on Muhammad al-Durrah immediately after a French court judgment relating to that case. That's how I first came into contact/conflict with him. To be fair, he has widened his editing interests since then.

It's obvious that Tundrabuggy was canvassed off-wiki to intervene in the ancient Persian articles not because of any experience or expertise that he has in this field - he has none - but because the canvassing administrator saw him as an ideological ally. This was quite clearly an act of stealth canvassing and votestacking, both forms of disruptive and inappropriate canvassing. It's very disappointing that an administrator should be behaving this way. Unfortunately some people seem to think that having a sysop bit exempts them from the normal rules of conduct. I hope the person responsible (yes, I know who you are) takes the hint and starts behaving like a responsible admin. As for Tundrabuggy - you've been exploited by your recruiter. In future, I suggest that you avoid playing into other people's hands like that; please don't let them take advantage of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple at this point. The evidence he was canvassed by an administrator to follow Chris0 to those articles is admitted. Tundrabuggy should simply withdraw from editing that kind of article where Chris0 has an academic interest as a classicist. For I/P articles, he should be free to roam at will. This should be a matter of gentlemanly withdrawal on his part from that area, since on his own evidence, he went there under an administrative indication, and not spontaneously, which mitigates the infraction, which remains one of wikistalking, and is proven verbis suis.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not recruited to perpetuate a feud with ChrisO nor for known expertise in the area, but for much the same reason that Chris was originally solicited, ie for his particular pov, as he pointed out in his link above at the FTN: [29]. There had edit-warring going on at the web page due to the perceived lack of balance. It was hoped that I had the knowledge and information to back up my comments at Elonka's web page and thus help make the article more neutral. I have not touted any particular expertise here at wiki because as Jayjg pointed out earlier, being anonymous users, none of our "credentials" are verifiable. Thus it is necessary for people to actually look at my edits to see if there is merit in them.

The block being considered below seems to me to be an extension of the one attempted on three other users here [30] all lumped together as "Iranian nationalists," as my editing has been tagged by ChrisO as having a "Jewish fundamentalist undercurrent." While I have come to appreciate the difficulties with User:Ariobarza, I don't believe that the wholesale blocking and banning of those opposed to one's POV is a productive method of problem solving.

It would have been far better, as I had been considering in recent days, to develop an RfC on the issue to determine if a particular POV was actually getting undue weight rather than this strategy to block users that espouse one side or another in a dispute. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "solicited" me. User:Dbachmann posted a general request for input on the FTN, to which I responded, because it's within my area of academic expertise. I responded by greatly expanding the Cyrus cylinder article with numerous reliable academic sources. You were specifically approached by two editors who thought your POV would be helpful to their side of disputes. You responded by following me to a range of articles, making absurd claims about "pushing pro-Palestinian nationalist POV" and reflexively opposing my edits.

This certainly isn't the first time I've had to take action about editing problems on these articles, but unfortunately that's because there has been a repeated problem with disruptive editors. CreazySuit (talk · contribs) and Larno Man (talk · contribs) repeatedly wiped out a sourced article for POV reasons and replaced it with an incoherent unsourced stub. Ariobarza (talk · contribs) engaged in constant disruptive original research and egregious incivility. Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) is doing much the same thing, but more politely. So is Secthayrabe (talk · contribs), though he barely seems able to write in English. You've tried to import the dispute we had over Israeli-Palestinian issues into an unrelated area. That isn't a POV issue; it's simple bad editing and bad behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy

Proposed: Tundrabuggy is prohibited from editing in the topic area of ancient Persia for the month of November, 2008, due to abovementioned stalking and topical problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

People have requested below that some diffs be provided to provide info on this issue. Key points:

• Tundrabuggy has a prior history of conflict with me due to our mutual involvement in Muhammad al-Durrah, an article relating to contemporary Israeli politics.
• Tundrabuggy has since followed me to five pages on ancient Persian history in which he was not previously involved, but involved himself very shortly after I did - Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus the Great, Battle of Opis, Kaveh Farrokh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris.
• He has been canvassed twice by editors in dispute with me: first by an unnamed administrator who "wrote me in email some days later suggesting I look at the [Cyrus cylinder] page and its Talk page", [31], second by the now-blocked Ariobarza [32]. He responded to both canvasses by involving himself in those disputes.
• He has accused me of "pushing a particular pov" [33] and of being part of a "campaign" [34] to push a "pro-Palestinian nationalist perspective" of ancient Babylonian history [35]. Many other editors regard this as ridiculous, as do I.
• He constantly assumes bad faith of myself and engages in sophistry and unreasonable behaviour, indicating that he has a personal issue with me; see this exchange.
• Other editors and I have asked him to desist from this pattern of behaviour. [36], [37], [38]. Instead of responding to these concerns, he has dismissed them out of hand. [39]
• He appears to be intent on treating Wikipedia as a battleground, sustaining personal conflicts and importing ideological issues into new areas. I have left him alone since our conflict over Muhammad al-Durrah; he has not reciprocated, but seems to think that he has to "police" my edits. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

• Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• See my comments below. ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A classically obvious example of our need to protect expert contributors from ideology-driven ignoramuses. That is one of the most urgent quality issues that Wikipedia faces, IMO. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Support. I've been observing this from a distance for a long time now. We need to stop "travelling circuses" where edit-warriors import their pet ideological battles into completely unrelated subjects. --Folantin (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support strongly, now Chris0 has complied with Jehochman's request. There is no need to drag this to another page. I have another example of this wikistalking behaviour on my own page, Ashley Kennedy, a fine, hard-working content editor, has been banned for a week for expressing (with highly improper language) his frustration at it, while the stalker persists. It has returned with brio to I/P wiki pages recently. This is becoming a farce, and the stalking, and tacit collaboration with it by many otherwise reasonable editors threatens to create a precedent or pattern way beyond the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

• I'm not seeing the stalking issue. I've been following the edits of all three of them for some time, and despite the rhetoric from ChrisO and Nishidani, I'm not seeing any major issues with Tundrabuggy's work. --Elonka 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not seeing any on-going issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't simply about "on-going issues" - it's about a pattern of behaviour. I don't want to find Tundrabuggy dogging my heels throughout this topic area because of his peculiar belief that I'm promoting a "pro-Palestinian nationalist POV" of ancient Persian history (seriously, that's tinfoil hat stuff). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's definitely a "pattern of behaviour" here, though not the one you refer to. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced by the discussion above that Tundrabuggy's doing anything wrong, much less deserving of a month long topic ban. Last time I checked, getting rid of your opponents isn't one of the steps you should be using in conflict resolution. Shell ^babelfish 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see mostly content disputes here, behavior of both ChrisO and Tundrabuggy is this conflict is not exemplary (per Jayjg analysis) but I do not see how a long block is warranted to either of them Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The evidence won't go stale. Why not wait a few days and start a topic ban discussion on WP:AN when things may be calmer. I would prefer to see the evidence presented in a clear fashion, rather than rely on people new to the discussion to dig through an ANI thread trying to work out what has happened. Topic bans are, in my opinion, best started in a new venue, not started from an ANI thread. In theory, the result of the topic ban discussion should be the same, regardless of where and when it is held, so why not see if the result really would be the same if held in a few days time on AN, with a careful presentation of the evidence? If the discussion remains here, could someone do an executive summary rather than rely on the phrase "abovementioned stalking and topical problems" to refer people to the above? i.e. distill out the most relevant diffs and evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Carcharoth. This proposal won't get full consideration because editors will not want to wade through a long, boring, disorganized thread. It would be far better to provide a concise summary of the evidence on a new thread. Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen(ed) to be against a one month topic ban, (as opposed to a permanent ban against following Chris0 in non I/P articles) which seems punitive and extreme. I just don't want him trailing a competent, trained historical editor into areas Tundra knows nothing about, but has lynx-eyes for all potential POVs he reads as 'anti-Israeli', a farcical position. I twice wrote as much, (oppose) until I saw two remarks, in successive edit conflicts last night which gave personal opinions, without evidence, and that simply declare 'I support Tundrabuggy'. I therefore withdrew my comment. Leave aside my own analysis of what Tundrab.'s own words mean, if analysed (what Elonka calls 'rhetoric'). By all means give a snap summary of the gist on the other administrative page. But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin. This is not a partisan matter, but simply remarking on the obvious, which has to be construed 'rhetorically' (i.e. at length) because some editors refuse to note the obvious meaning of words, giving the impression this is a 'political' fight over I/P POVs. Since Tundrabuggy is convinced there is a political bias in all I/P editors who write on ancient ME history, not take some measure, here or elsewhere, is to open up these obscure pages to the kind of one-eyed POV-sleuthing that makes contemporary I/P articles an unreadable mess. He should simply not edit where Chris0 works on ancient historical articles not dealing directly with the history of Palestine, until at least he shows he has read sufficiently to have a reasonably solid knowledge of the area. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. This is absolutely incorrect: "But by his own admission he was a proxy in vote-stacking organized by a canvassing admin." I was simply recruited to "Cyrus Cylinder" by an admin. The "vote" for the Battle of Tigris article was solicited by the author, not by any admin, and I take responsibility for my "vote" for the reasons I gave earlier. I have however come to see that as a mistake, but it has nothing to do with any administrator. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Votestacking" isn't necessarily about AfDs. WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." You were recruited by someone who saw you as an ideological ally. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, when you explain "votestacking", are you referring to these edits? [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]? I notice quite a few people contacted in that way have been prominent in this discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals who were already or very recently involved in discussions on my talk page, or Ariobarza's talk page, about issues with Ariobarza and (in a couple of cases) Tundrabuggy. I certainly don't think you could consider individuals as diverse as Akhilleus, Jaakobou and Alvestrand to be supporters of any particular POV. Of course, this is quite different from off-wiki stealth canvassing by an unnamed administrator. Which you would presumably consider bad, right? I've not seen a word of concern from you about that issue. I wonder why? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO, you appear to be trying to change the subject, which was your own complaint about "votestacking" even as you were doing it in this very situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a ban - preferably longer than a month, but that's a good start. Tundrabuggy consistently refuses to assume good faith on my part, which makes working with him unnecessarily difficult. Read this exchange for a case in point. He clearly has personal difficulties with working with me as well as an aggressively ideological approach. He responded to an improper off-wiki canvass. Since then he's actively gone to several articles in which I've been involved, deliberately following me from article to article and creating conflict. He's already been counseled several times that this is inappropriate behaviour. Since he has repeatedly disregarded the advice of others and requests to desist, something stronger needs to be tried. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(added) I've added a summary of key points and diffs above per Jehochman's suggestion. However, I think it should be kept in one place rather than splitting it into multiple threads. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a diff down here, to the edit you made above? I scanned the thread, but I think it got lost in the noise. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Summary immediately below #Proposal: 1-month topic ban for Tundrabuggy. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – RMHED blocked and "retired". Underlying issues of BLP and content removal too big to be solved here. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to personally note that although I think that RMHED's indef block is a bit much even though he was being POINTy, this particular case is, as Protonk says, resolved. However, the bigger issue remains. We have an editor who was acting a bit pointy but in the end forcingn us to confront a serious issue: there are completely (totally!) unsourced biographies which need to be fixed, and if they can't be fixed, they need to be deleted. Simple as that. Elsewhere in this discussion someone mentions the possibility of a special BLP-PROD, and I think that may be the right approach. As it stands right now, we have a template on some of these articles that says that unsourced statements should be removed (especially if they may be libelous) and yet the articles have no sources at all, and we blcok someone for doing exactly what the template says. This is madness. My own view is that such articles should be subject to extremely aggressive pruning or deletion, but I acknowledge the need for some process which takes into account the possibility that someone may care enough to make them of reasonable quality by sourcing them. But if no one will, in some cases after months have passed with a template, then nuke them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and collapsed the discussion below following the resolved tag and Jimbo's comment above. I suggest the next step should be to start discussion at the appropriate venue on what to do with unsourced biographies of living people. Do we need a new page or should the discussion take place at an existing page? Please, no further discussion here. Let's get the discussion recorded properly on the right page, and have a link here to that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Yet another Wiki_brah (talk · contribs) sock - Alison ^❤ 04:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all caught up in electoral fervor, watching fox news about 7 hours a day. I was told about Wikipedia; the upcoming Arb Com elections already have my interest. This is my first edit: 30 October 2008 -- I am looking for a few mentors and a team to get me prepped to run for Arb Com by December. Please point me in the right direction so I can help lead Wikipedia into 2009! Morris Battle (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And bitten. Was that really necessary? Even vandals get warnings, and this guy appears to have good intentions, if unrealistic goals. Mangojuice^talk 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mangojuice, why was a block appropriate here? I am not seeing any imminent danger to the project. --Elonka 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) amended post below[reply]

Unless there is some other information we are not privy to, I echo Mangojuice (talk · contribs)'s confusion as to why this user was blocked. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts) I think he should use his original account if he's interested in running for ArbCom. (Does anyone really find it plausible that I bit a new user here? His very first edit was the above post to AN/I. His three subsequent edits were tag-bombing an obscure science article. It took him less than three minutes to discover that he was blocked and figure out how to write a disingenuous {unblock} on his talk page.) I will resign my adminship right here and now if a consensus develops that I actually bit a newbie in this instance. Y'all were trolled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The user’s first edit was the one above followed by three edits adding tags to an obscure article. I agree with TenOfAllTrades’s assessment of this user being a troll. —Travis^talk 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user wants power and I don't trust that. I think his tag-bombing was probably designed to give the account the appearance of legitimacy. So yes, I agree, this behavior isn't good. But I do think it's too early to conclude that this user will never do anything but troll. Mangojuice^talk 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad block if ever I saw one. And by golly have I seen some. Sarah777 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, though on first glance I was scratching my head here, I'm starting to come around to Tenofalltrades' view. This new account does seem to have extensive knowledge of wiki-procedures, and this edit[51] is highly suspect as he tagged the Cytomere article as a hoax. Granted the stub could use more sources, but to put in an edit summary "can't find any references", when even a simple Google search shows it's a valid term, is not reasonable. Though I think it would been better to warn first and block second, I do support the block at this point. --Elonka 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'd bet real money he's a troll (apologies Morris, if you're not) - but where isWP:AGF? Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To Sarah777: Perhaps you don’t speak Morris’s language, but to someone fluent in it, their first edit is, to say the least, disingenuous. —Travis^talk 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis declined the unblock request, and I've left a note explaining the block just in case. I expect that if the user comes back with a good answer they'll be given a second chance, since this was a stronger reaction than truly necessary. Mangojuice^talk 02:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elona- rubbish AfDs because people haven't even bothered to google to see if there are sources happen all the time, so I bet tagging things as a hoax without googling happens sometimes too.:) Mind you, most new users perhaps wouldn't know or care what arbcom is, let alone run for it. Sticky Parkin 03:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the deserved block. There have been a rash of new accounts crop up lately, make strange AN/ANI postings, and then post some obscure crap elsewhere. I'm sure it's some teenager jacking around or a serial troll. Nothing new. seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, block wasn't necessary. Highly likely to be a troll but blocking simply created more drama than anything else. The post would have been ignored or we would have given the user a polite explanation. And in the unlikely case this was a real user it would have been a very bad bite. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Thinking about this more, I'm not sure I want blocks like this in general, but there does seem to be a major DUCK element to this block which is reasonable. I doubt any real user would run right over to ANI to post this sort of thing as the very first edit. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What an absolutely horrible block. I think Ten need a short block to remind him of wiki policy. Bstone (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider it possible that Morris Battle lives under a bridge, is a "smallish giant" , possibly akin to ogres , and inclined to eat up any goats who attempt to cross the bridge. Edison (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de-lurk (I'm retired, dammit :) ) - this is a  Confirmed Wiki_brah/Jeanlatore sock, yet again. Here for the lulz and the trolling. Nothing to see here, folks, move along now - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alison -- either you read my post or read my mind.  :) Antandrus (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone contacted me off-wiki. Good guess, though :) - Alison ^❤ 05:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I won't say anything here, I'll just block the troll and be done with it. Sorry for letting all of you get sucked into feeding the troll. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would prefer if you did say something, because the alternative would be just as bad, as the no-explanation block would also raise questions. A better way to handle this, would have been to post a reply here at ANI with a bit more information as to why you blocked. I have to admit, when I first saw this thread, I saw what looked like an overeager newbie posting something, and then your immediate block made it look like you had blocked him for saying he wanted to run for ArbCom. It appeared (on first glance) to be an over-reaction bite of a newbie. Many established editors and admins here are already on pins and needles as we await both the on-wiki (ArbCom) and off-wiki (US) elections, and the concept that someone was blocked just for saying that they wanted to run for ArbCom, understandably got some hackles up. So if you would have posted something such as, "Based on this user's other contributions, this appears to be a troll, so I am blocking," that would have de-escalated the situation. Or, you could have simply chosen to not block, but post a warning to the user's talkpage, and a message here that you felt it was a troll (and why). But just saying "blocked" without any reason, was what increased the confusion. --Elonka 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, even after the detailed explanation from multiple users, we still had people chiming in to tell me what a terrible admin I was for making the block, right up until a couple of minutes before Alison ran a checkuser to confirm what was patently obvious from the user's contributions. People are telling me not to bite and to WP:AGF. Well, AGF is a two-way street. Why can't people be willing to assume that in four years of Wikipedia experience (most with the admin buttons), I might have a bit of a clue? Why is the automatic assumption made that the Big Bad Admin^TM must be oppressing the innocent newcomer?

Elonka, you've been editing Wikipedia almost as long as I have. Instead of immediately agreeing with Mangojuice, why didn't you look at the guy's contributions? Anyone with some experience on Wikipedia's high-traffic noticeboards should know what a troll looks like by now. While you're right that I should have been more descriptive in my first message, I honestly thought that the block would be both obvious and uncontroversial. I will also note that even after my explanation was posted we still got at least four editors (Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, Bstone) insisting I was wrong (with varying amounts of invective). If we're genuinely at the point where we can't block obvious, returning, block-evading socks without needing a Checkuser every time, we're very deep in the shit indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that an experienced user should also know that this sort of misunderstanding and thread is common (you have seen threads like this before in your time on Wikipedia, right?) so an extension of the "experienced user" argument is that a warning, followed by a block if there were subsequent edits, would have been slightly more effort, but would have avoided the possibility of this thread. I suppose you might not have had time to hang around and see if the troll carried on editing after the warning, or you might have been worried that another admin might have wasted time with another warning, when you had correctly assessed that this was a troll, but in these mental calculations and cost-benefit analysis, did you consider the cost of this ANI thread? I suppose the benefit of this ANI thread is that those reading it are now less likely to react like this in future. Maybe you, Elonka, Cirt, Mangojuice, Sarah777, and Bstone could clarify how they would react to a similar situation in future, and we can try and avoid ANI threads like this in future (or at least work out how to close them efficiently and sensibly). Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of admins who have been round long enough, shown good faith and care often enough, that when they do summarily block an account, they are unlikely to be doing so on a completely unreasonable basis. Perhaps mistaken in good faith, but usually well within reasonable judgement and with forethought. Users who develop enough cluefulness to spot disruptive users early should obviously still take care, but it's more in line with assuming good faith to ask them for more explanation, rather than just diving in to declare it a bad block or whatever. Those who have complained about this thread being on ANI should note that the blocked sock-user himself started the ANI thread, and should expect a competent admin to spot the trolling and quickly deal with it. That said, Elonka's point is a reasonable one too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three problems with the warning-only approach. The first is philosophical. Why give a warning only when the purpose of the account is obvious? It's a waste of my time and it's a waste of the time of the admin who eventually blocks later. It's also damned disingenuous — why should I pretend to be clueless when I'm not? What should I say in a message that isn't utterly phony? What is the point of a message that says, 'You're obviously a troll, but I'm not going to block you because I'll get grief for it from less-perceptive editors at AN/I'?

The second is that it offers the opportunity to make the trolling more effective. We offer an oh-so-stern warning while the troll laughs up his sleeve. He then goes ahead and continues trolling here or on his talk page, while some suckers fall for his innocent act and rail against the Evil Newbie-Biting Admin.

The final issue is the risk of harm to the encyclopedia. If the troll actually does stop (for a couple of hours, even) then he's free to resume the same behaviour later on. Be honest — are there any admins here who have the time and inclination to follow a trolling account's contributions for more than a couple of hours? In a few days, he's got an autoconfirmed account that can be used for much more serious mischief (and this is a problem I've seen multiple times). Heck, he can clear his talk page and it's at least even money that no one will even notice that the first warning was issued. We go on and repeat the 'final' warning cycle two or three times.

I've finally realized my mistake here. I should have followed the process at WP:RBI. No attention at all for the troll. I had hoped that this experience could be educational and helpful to new admins and admin candidates who read this board. I had hoped to demonstrate that we could demonstrate that we could respond quickly and effectively to obvious trolls, without a lot of wasted time and effort. Obviously a different lesson was delivered. Next time I'll blank the whole thread and block without comment, and leave the armchair admins in blissful ignorance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Revert the ANI post (with a note in the edit summary), block as a troll. Any subsequent discussion would be on the talk page of the blocked account. For what it is worth, I think some admins reading this will have learnt more about how to spot trolls, so as I said, the thread wasn;t entirely wasted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really amazing to me how hard some long-time contributors allow themselves to be trolled. Seriously. Grandmasterka 07:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and saying that helps how? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I agree that the initial post above was obviously trollish, but the point about trolls is that they are trying to fool people and they do, by their very nature, succeed sometimes. That is why you have to manage not just the initial trolling, but also the response (including educating people about how to spot a troll). Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire thread is one big WIN for Mr. Troll. Tan | 39 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls exist. By definition not everyone recognises them. Arguing over who should be trusted to recognise them and whether the troll has "won" or not is not productive. There is a reason why the standard response is revert, block, ignore. That didn't happen here, but there is no harm in learning lessons. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you've had a chance to learn a lesson too, Carcharoth. Twenty-four hours ago you were telling me that the correct response would be to not block, and offer a warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I was wrong (I have no problem admitting that), and we've both learnt something. The trick is, if someone picks up on the block or the revert, is to: (a) explain calmly if you are around; and (b) if people do get fooled into discussing the trolling while you are not around (note that we are not discussing the trolling, but the response to the trolling), to diplomatically minimise that response and not castigate people for being fooled. Saying "Y'all were trolled" might be true, but you are feeding the troll by saying that. No-one takes kindly to being told that they've been fooled, and it is part of the response the troll wants to see. Note that the checkuser by Alison cleared things up like a shot. Technically, that shouldn't be needed, because as you say most people should recognise the troll. But if people do get fooled, checkuser is a good way to pick up a sock-troll. Really, though, we should both stop here. If you want to say something more, by all means do, but I'm now going to respect the 'resolved' tag and move on from this - lessons learnt! Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious troll. Props to the admin responsible for blocking. JBsupreme (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Man in Black has been in a content dispute with multiple parties over his claim of a copyvio for general information in a infobox on Gundam (mobile suit). He has threatened and followed through on blocking Jtrainor in blatant violation of our blocking policy in the following manner: You do not block those who you are involved in a content dispute with. I would suggest that Jtrainor is unblocked immediately and AMIB be reminded that you do not use the tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute and that blocking is not to be used in a purely punitive manner. There was no other dispute resolution tried other than AMIB threatening this user. Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "this is a copyvio" constitutes a content dispute. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and citing "policies" will get you nowhere. Admittedly, it might have been a better idea to ask somebody else to block, but I'm not sure that an immediate unblock is warranted.

Also, it's a long-standing practice to block people who insert copyvios – it's not necessarily punitive, but deterrent (which is, of course, a legitimate preventative purpose for a block). — Werdna • talk 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that he claims it is a copyvio, however, claiming that a character has blonde hair or a spaceship has laser beams does not seem to be copyvio, but simply a ploy to hide the fact that he's attempting to camouflage his violation (which is threatening to use the mop to quell dissent and gain advantage in a simple content dispute). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look at this. The relevant diff seems to be here. The website in question is here. The next few edits to Gundam (mobile suit) were reverts of this information about the character. One of the reverts was by Kyaa (who started this thread and should have mentioned that she was involved in this). Kyaa was carrying out the same edit as User:Jtrainor, but Jtrainor was the only one to re-add the information more than once. Presumably that is why User:A Man In Black blocked, but I need to check the user and article talk pages and the block logs, and check they've been notified. I'll do that now, as well as consider the copyvio claim. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial follow-up: there is another article involved: MSN-03 Jagd Doga. See this diff and this website and then step through the page history from there. Kyaa mentioned this thread on Jtrainor's talk page, but didn't link to the thread, so I've left a link there, and at AMIB's talk page. Looking at the block log and contributions now to find out if this is being discussed elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another article where this dispute has erupted. See RGM-89 Jegan, where with this edit AMIB says " All of this is copyvio from mahq.net" ([52]). The root of the dispute seems to be at Template:Infobox Mobile Suit. It seems to go back as far as November 2007. See here (compare with Infobox MS Gundam, now a redirect). There was an edit war over that infobox back in November 2007. Then things started up again a few days later with this edit and this edit ("Why do we have two infoboxes for the same thing?" - from User:TheFarix), which led to this edit by AMIB ("Because I never finished converting them to dump all the in-universe nonsense"). The diffs for that infobox from here to here seem to sum up what is happening:

• AMIB - "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail; a lot of this still needs to be retooled to better emphasize RL, but hey"
• TheFarix - "rvt; given past opposition. The fields previously removed where those suggested by proponents as unnecessary"
• AMIB - "It's still highly in-universe, unencyclopedic, and wholly unsourced"
• L-Zwei - "oh, then exclude heigh as well. I think weapons are actually more important in represent mech's characteristic"
• TheFarix - "I agree, the height and weight doesn't really tell you anything about the mecha while aremaments and special equipmenet does"
• AMIB - "It's not the most important facts about the subject as an object in the real world. If a weapon or special system is important, it's in the body of the article. If it isn't, it doesn't bear mention"
• TheFarix - "rvt; You are not going to dictate what can and cannot be included in the infobox without discussion and consensus. You don't WP:OWN this template"
• AMIB - "Offer a single non-licensed source discussing the armaments in the detail that these infoboxes go into and I'll relent"
• Jtrainor - "rv vandalism by someone who has no interest or knowledge about the subject matter and insists on inserting his version anyways against consensus"
• AMIB - "Reverted edits by Jtrainor (talk) to last version by A Man In Black"

OK. That's enough for now. I think I've uncovered enough of the history for something sensible to be decided. Hopefully AMIB and Jtrainor will add more if I missed anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a few. See Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam. Particularly the sections Ahem (from the November 2007 dispute), and Redesign (the October 2008 dispute). At the WikiProject, we have numerous threads showing clashes between AMIB and the WikiProject. Starting from around here (June 2007). More clashes are here, here, here, here, here, here (what is the "I believe the differing parties are engaged in a resolution process occupying their attention right now" referring to - from November 2007?), and here (the latest dispute in October 2008). So what we seem to have is a long-running dispute over in-universe and possible copyvio stuff, running from at least June 2007 through July 2007, November 2007, and now October 2008. Anyone have any ideas how to handle this? What was the resolution process back in November 2007? The first "Characters and Episodes" arbitration case? Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more to point, was the block justified? I'm not entirely convinced that the copyvio case is not debatable, but I do see a long running attempt by AMIB to clean up an in-universe area (the Gundam anime articles), along with dealing with copyright issues (non-free images and possibly character information - if that turns out to be copyrightable - see for example the note AMIB left for Kyaa [53]), and a long history of resistance at the WikiProject and poor interaction between AMIB and Jtrainor, culminating in the confrontational exchange here: Copyright warning by AMIB, "Why yes, please do block someone you are involved in a content dispute with. I am utterly underwhelmed by your threats." (Jtrainor), followed by "Well, okay. You're blocked for 24 hours. Please don't do that again." (AMIB). The block is due to expire 08:47 UTC, 2 November 2008, which is around 20 hours from now. No response yet from either side. I would hope AMIB manages to answer here before the block expires - someone should also keep an eye on Jtrainor's talk page for any response there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen blocks overturned, due to the block being done by "involved admins" - overturned on far flimsier grounds than this. It looks to me like AMIB simply doesn't like that info being in the article, and is using whatever reasons he can come up with, to keep it out. It looks like blatant abuse of admin power. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The simple fact is that AMIB is POV pushing in template and article space. His claim that listing the armaments and other statistics of fictional elements amounts to a copyright violation is simply the latest argument he has used in order to remove these statistics. Originally, it was that the statistics overwhelm the page giving WP:UNDUE weigh to in-universe details, that they violate WP:WAF, or that no reliable third-party sources list such information. At no point has he ever sought a third opinion or any other dispute resolution procedure, instead preferring to use his administrative tools to enforce his preferred version.

If you also look at WT:GUNDAM who will see a long history of AMIB and the Gundam WikiProject bumping heads over various issues. At times, I do think that AMIB is deliberately antagonizing them. As a result, the WikiProject has lost its focus in cleaning up and improving Gundam-related articles. This is one of the reason why I've suggested that WP:ANIME absorbs WP:GUNDAM as a work group. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. AMIB does make some good points though. There is a point at which sourcing/copying character information from a website probably can become a copyright violation. The essential points are whether the basic elements of the information is copyrightable (probably not), and whether the information as a whole for a character, or set of characters, is copyrightable (a bit like a database copyright, but not quite the same as here we have artistic [fictional] content). If Wikipedia is presenting the information here in the same way as it is being presented on the official websites, then we are, in effect, directly competing with them for web traffic, even if some of our readers follow the links to the sources and to the official website. It is also easier to justify including such information when it is discussed and placed in a real-world context in the main text of an article (using third-party sources) rather than just repeated verbatim as in-universe information in an infobox. One final point - it is possible for different editors, working over months and years, to separately add stuff from a source, and for the final article to end up being a copy of all the information from that source - this is a problem of unintentional "piece-by-piece" copyright violation that is peculiar to the wiki-model, and that Wikipedia will have to address at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're generously making AMIB's argument for him, whereas it would be much better if he himself would comment - if he decides it's worth bothering with, since there is currently no hint of any sanction against him. While his claim of "copyright violation" is pretty lame, it would have more credibility if he hadn't been all over the map with his previous arguments against it, which simply add up to "I don't like it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are actually my arguments, not AMIB's arguments (though he may agree with me). I will say that I'm not impressed with AMIB's flippant "well, OK" response to Jtrainor's "this is a content dispute". As I've laid out above, AMIB does have a long history of disputing what should go in that infobox, and in the past, AMIB has started from trying to clean up in-universe stuff, to switching to copyright stuff. He may be right in both cases, but it does feel like another stage in the same long-running dispute. AMIB is clearly heavily involved here, and should have requested a second opinion, instead of allowing Jtrainor's 'block me if you dare' comment to bait him into blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether AMIB has a point does not justify him enforcing that point by edit waring, blocking one editor, and threatening to block a second editor involved in the dispute. --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You've said that. I'm waiting to see what others say. I think there are two issues that need resolving here. The immediate issue of the block, and the wider issue of the long-running festering issues at the Gundam WikiProject. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - it seems that the previous dispute resolution wasn't an arbitration case. It was a mediation. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1. Not sure how far that got things to improve (seems to have been withdrawn when things started to improve), but it is clear that things have taken a turn for the worse again. I've also noticed that the dates of Jtrainor's other two blocks (July 2007 and November 2007) coincide with the dates of Gundam-related disputes. Unfortunately, the blocking admins did not specify the articles that were involved in the blocks. I could dig through Jtrainor's talk page history, but will drop a note off for the blocking admins as well and see what they can remember. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final update for now - there is quite a history of this on Jtrainor's talk page. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is a mess. Jtrainor has filed an unblock request under the latest section. See here. I have to go out now for the rest of the day, but I hope there is enough here for others to review and sort out what needs doing. As I said, it is a mess and a long-running dispute. I'll check back in the evening and see what has happened then. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • FYI the November 2007 blocks probably revolved primarily around Gundam Mk-II, Psyco Gundam and MSN-03 Jagd Doga (disputes over "in universe" content and sourcing) and Jean Carry Talia Gladys (along with all the other characters in the ZAFT / OMNI / PLANT alliances) re: copyright material. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth, I was also blocked my A Man In Black (my first block on Wikipedia) over almost the same thing, though things were more civil back then. I had hoped that that big mediation process we went through with AGK had resolved some disputes, but obviously that is not the case. This is an old issue. MalikCarr (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addendum, interested parties ought to review Jtrainor's unblock appeal, in which interesting and relevant points are made on the topic of copyright violation. See here. This issue has also been addressed before, wherein some consensus was gained and to which A Man In Black was opposed to, in the infobox template's talk page which has been previously addressed above. MalikCarr (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request for mediation on Gundam was exclusively for edit warring on in-universe-like items in one of the Gundam infoboxes. At its worst, they were repeatedly reverting each other without discussion. Then they seemed to be getting better at talking more than reverting, and so I didn't think mediation needed to be pursued. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very similar, except what AMIB is saying is not just that they are in-universe, but that they are copyright violations as well. I haven't looked closely enough into this 18-month-long dispute to work out when the copyright concerns first surfaced (a few days ago, six months ago, a year ago?). Hopefully AMIB will turn up and clarify that. There have been more developments on Jtrainor's talk page, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question. If Jtrainor is going to remained block for edit waring, should AMIB also be blocked for the same violation? --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be punitive and unhelpful. A warning would be justified if consensus finds that AMIB did anything wrong. I personally would warn him not to block in cases like this where he has a long history of clashing with Jtrainor. If someone wants me to explicitly put that on his talk page, I will do so. But a block would not prevent anything here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked based on the discussion here and on the user talk page. If Jtrainor resumes the edit war, he can always be reblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if AMIB also resumes edit warring, I assume he will be blocked as well? After all, it wouldn't be appropriate to give such a stipulation to one party but let the more aggressive party in the dispute off the hook. --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly hope so. Policies should apply to everyone, sysop or no. MalikCarr (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-undent-

The locus of this dispute is based around whether it is acceptable to include some of the fictional statistics of the items in question. AMIB's latest position on this issue is that it is not, because they are a copyvio. This is clearly false, as the information falls under fair use, and is not as detailed as in, say, model kit manuals and so forth, as well as the official guides on the matter. The current material in virtually all cases serves to better describe the items in question, similar to the stat blocks on, say, Star Destroyer, or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), or Battlestar Galactica (ship), or Andromeda Ascendant, or . It provides additional information in a concise form that is of interest both to fans of the subject and to people who are seeking information about an item. Certain items in these lists of equipment are even linked elsewhere, to better provide understanding about the subject to those who may be unfamiliar with it. For example, in the previously mentioned MSN-03 Jagd Doga article, there are links on the words Newtype, psycommu, mobile suit, and funnel, to points in the appropriate article which explain what these things are. Likewise, the name of the designer, the series it appears in, and the fictional pilot of the unit in question are highlighted as well in case one wishes to find out further information about them.

It is unclear what AMIB's actual position on this material is, other than he doesn't like it and wants it to go. It is very clear that his dislike is not truely based on policy and a desire to better Wikipedia, as he has changed this reasoning several times over the years concerning the same material, and has displayed erratic behaviour when he hasn't gotten his way, including blocking those who disagree with him, such as myself and User:MalikCarr. Jtrainor (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, I was pretty sure much of the content in question was copyvio from somewhere. Now I know specifically where it's copied from. I removed it as such, was reverted, warned the users, and blocked the one who reverted copyvio into an article the second time. Jtrainor didn't attempt to defend himself, he just removed my comment from his talk (which is the typical acknowledgement of a warning) and replaced the copyvio content.

This is not the first time MalikCarr and Jtrainor have engaged in brinksmanship over copyright to affect an aggrieved posture. I am not interested in playing political games over copyright.

The dispute over in-universe content is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if they properly attributed those bits of trivia as being from [54] would that fix everything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would not satisfy WP:FUC #2 (Bandai and its licensors publish their own guides, either for sale or to guide people to their promotional websites), #3b (we can discuss the weapons with encyclopedic prose, so there's no need for blocks of stats), or #8 (the blocks range from somewhat to entirely trivial detail). Copyrighted material requires not only a source, but a valid fair-use rationale.

It is important to note that these are not uncopyrightable statistics, like the weight of an aircraft or the caliber of a firearm, but instead copyrighted fiction that affects the style of a technical readout.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if the editors re-stated that info in prose style, and properly attributed it, then it would be OK? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting into the actual content issue. Personally, I don't think it would be okay using a stat dossier as a source, because parroting fiction of lesser importance only serves to obscure the important facts, like the object's role in the story, artistic development, impact on licensed goods, etc. Disagreeing about this is a content dispute.

That said, I'm not blocking anyone because they disagreed with me on that; I'd have blocked dozens of users by now if I blocked people because they disagreed with me about how to present fiction in an out-of-universe way. I blocked Jtrainor because he replaced a block of text copied verbatim from a copyrighted source after being warned. That's not a content dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black continues to edit war

AMIB has once again reverted an edit[55] that restored the disputed text. Since he has reengaged in the edit war, I expect another admin to take appropriate actions. --Farix (Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "disputed text" was copied, verbatim, from here. That's not a content dispute, that's copyvio.

I also removed a section immediately below it, apparently since my first edit; this was in error, and has since been corrected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also added a "primary source" template to try to pre-empt bringing the information into the article directly from its source. This is nothing more than a content dispute hiding behind a claim of copyright violation. The claim of the info being "trivial" was AMIB's original complaint, and that's what this is really about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material I removed was copyvio. I don't like a lot of things about that article, but I excised only the portion copied directly from a copyrighted source, despite the fact that the history is riddled with copyvio at this point.

If someone were to rewrite the block as prose, I would be unhappy and would disagree for the reasons above, but I wouldn't treat it as a copyright violation because it wouldn't be. I would rather the article be written based on sources that aren't fiction, yes, but, like I said, not blocking people over it.

I don't really appreciate these accusations of bad faith, especially immediately explaining directly to you that I understood the difference between what I would like and what the rules are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith, especially since you yourself originally brought up triviality as the complaint, and have since gone looking for "legitimate" reasons to delete it. And you yourself blocked someone with whom you were having a content dispute, which is a gross violation of your authority. I don't know anything about you except what you write. And you're all over the map on this one item. Maybe you should leave it alone for awhile. There are plenty of other articles that need improvement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like trivial information to be marginalized or removed. Copyvio needs to be removed on sight. The complaint I have always had is that the blocks made the articles too much like a fansite, and being copied exactly from an official fansite is a pretty excessive example of that.

On top of all of this, I had moved on. Someone reopened the issue, I limited my edits to the template, and for the last several days limited my edits to the talk page of the template. Someone suggested that the stats were copied verbatim from somewhere, and after checking two articles I'd edited a year before, I found them to indeed be copied verbatim from there. So I removed the copyvio, tagged one of them for style, and moved on, until my removal of copyvio was reverted with undo or edit summaries of "rvv". I warned, saw the warning ignored in one case, and blocked in that case.

I have more or less abandoned what I would like, save in the limited case of not cramming things into infoboxes, where I've been discussing it on a talk page. This vague suggestion that I'm trying to muscle my way through a content dispute makes no sense considering that Jtrainor, Kyaa, and until today MalikCarr hadn't even commented on Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit, the only place I was pursuing what I would like. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if they rewrite it as prose, with proper attribution, that removes the copyright issue, and takes it back to your original complaint, as stated in your first sentence: That you don't like it. Hence, it still comes down to a content dispute, and you were out of line blocking someone in that circumstance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrainor didn't rewrite it as prose with proper attribution. He reverted copyvio into an article. He was warned, and then blocked.

Farix rewrote as attributed prose, and got no warning and no revert.

So if people are rewriting as prose, I'm not much happy, but, for the third time, I'm not warning or blocking people for making me unhappy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, you revert changes to Template:Infobox Mobile Suit ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) because you don't like them. Even though the reason part of the template was collapsible no longer exists because the articles that had problems with overly long infoboxes were merged a few days ago.[56][57] --Farix (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold, I reverted, you reverted, discussion ensued. I didn't even revert to a version I liked; I just reverted a change that didn't seem to make any sense until you explained it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still edit warring on the infobox. LEAVE IT ALONE. You are not the arbitrator if which fields are legitimate and what fields are not. If you want to ask about changes in the infobox, ask them on the discussion page instead of undoing them. I am aghast that another admin has not blocked you yet for continuing to edit war. --Farix (Talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an unrelated edit once, to a version I don't like, is not a revert war. If you're aghast that someone might revert an edit you made because they disagreed with it, you might be interested in reading this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you revert again. What I am aghast about that you haven't been blocked for continuing to edit war over Gundam articles. But if that's not edit warring, then there is no such thing as edit warring. But since you are not discussing your reverts on the template's talk page, then you are simply vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted some style changes to the infobox as vandalism, so it wasn't clear what you had done. Perhaps if you didn't revert good-faith edits as vandalism, but instead asked about them on the talk page instead of undoing them, you might get a better response. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I you've been the one removing good faith changes to the template without explanation because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I think we call see that you are edit warring/vandalizing the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the history.

1. AMIB - "rm forced italics; not every work is longform (for example, a suit that appears in only one episode, in a short story, or in a single volume"
2. AMIB - "When did a last appearance field get added? That's not a very good idea; most designs continue to appear in licensed works, in guides, in spinoffs, etc."
3. Farix - "rv vandalism" - This was apparently reverting edits #1 and #2.
4. Two edits - I change some template code, Farix changes it back. Stylistic difference, essentially no practical difference.
5. - Two edits by AMIB - I wasn't clear what had happened to the ital change and the removal of the last appearance field from #1 and #2, figuring that they were lost in the fiddling with the title. Farix reverted them as vandalism in edit #3, for reasons he hasn't felt the need to share with me.
6. Farix - "rvt vandalism"
7. Two edits by AMIB - I revert with a snarky comment, then self-revert, thinking better of it.

Vandalism? Ownership? IDONTLIKEIT? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the history. I'm seeing you edit war to revert my good-faith edits as vandalism, ignoring my edit summaries and making wild accusations.

So. Where are your good faith changes again? Where is my vandalism? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently left out this edit where I originally added the italic and the last field. That was the edit you kept reverting because you didn't like them. The documentation of the template states that the series was for the name of the series the Gundam came from, not the name of a episode. That is what the first field is for. And the last field, it is standard on pretty much every infobox for fictional elements. Yet you kept removing them for no reason what so ever other then not liking them. Which is funny because you were the one originally complaining about the lack of out-of-universe field in the template. --Farix (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When your edit summaries don't explain what your edits are, how can I hope to know what you're doing in an edit? What part of "rvt; I perfectly know well why this was made collasable as I was the one who did it. It is no longer an issue" implies that you're adding a new field or changing the formatting of one? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what we have had to deal with, ladies and gentlemen? Changing reasons and a complete refusal to negotiate in any way, shape, or form. He's now taking advantage of the fact that I am not allowed to revert him without being blocked. I should hope you now block him for edit warring, as he is clearly interested in continuing it. Jtrainor (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is start a wider discussion on whether or not the text in question is a copyright violation. You say AMIB is enforcing his view of things. Equally, you are merely stating that you think you are right and he is wrong. Get a wider discussion started on this. That's the only way it is going to be resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of A Man In Black's block of MalikCarr

I've had to block MalikCarr (talk · contribs) under essentially identical circumstances, in MSN-03 Jagd Doga. This brinksmanship over copyright is not appropriate.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You absolutely had to do this? I'm not impressed with either side here. The Gundam editors should be discussing this, not reverting, but equally you should be getting a second opinion on whether this is a copyright violation and whether you are too involved here. I laid out above the long history here. You should have made a report here that MalikCarr (talk · contribs) was violating copyright and asked for someone else to block him. That is one way to find out if anyone else agrees with you. For the record, I agree that there is an issue here, but I think what needs to happen is for there to be a wider discussion about this. You talk about fair-use rationales for text. That's confusing things terribly. We have non-free-use rationales for images and other media, but the issue of how Wikipedia:Non-free content (and the associated policy) applies to test is covered at Wikipedia:FU#Text -

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

There is no mention of use rationales there, and quite rightly so, since Wikipedia articles are primarily text-based. We must attribute the use of texts as information sources and quote them when using short extracts of text. Use rationales don't apply here, unless you want people to supply a rationale everytime they quote something - please tell me you didn't mean that. Don't get me wrong here - I think you have a very valid point about the copyright issue, but I don't think it is black-and-white enough for you to be handing out blocks over this, especially not give the history here. I'm not going to dispute the specifics of the block you made here, but I will note that you have twice blocked MalikCarr before over copyvios (back in July 2007), so you need to get this resolved one way or the other. If MalikCarr's previous copyvio blocks were also valid and over the same issue, then you are not resolving the situation merely by issuing blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous blocks over copyvio were over misuse of a non-free image after having been warned by multiple people, followed by repeated uploading of the same image after it was deleted. Again, MalikCarr ignored warnings that what he was replacing violated copyright policy and he continued to do so.

There may be a possibility of rewriting the copyvio text or quoting it properly or some other alternative, but no such effort was made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the previous issue. It is a pity that block logs are not more descriptive - there is usually room available in the block log to provide a diff to an explanation, but the explanation usually gets written after the block is applied (so you have to go look at the user talk page history instead). You haven't responded to my point that you have a long history here with the Gundam WikiProject and copyright and in-universe issues and that you might need to ask for opinions from others to see whether you are judging things correctly here. Do you think that your long history here means outside opinions would be helpful? I'm finishing off a post about this in more detail on your talk page. I've also added a link above to the bit where you talked about fair-use rationales for quoting text. Would you like to respond to that point as well? Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could get into a lengthy discussion of how to properly deal with copyrighted text here. However, it'd be in the wrong place and not germane to the issue at hand.

Copyvio needs to be dealt with swiftly. I had no reasonable way to be assured that copyvio would not be reverted into these articles after a warning; in fact, after a warning, copyvio was twice reverted into articles with no explanation at all.

There exists the possibility that I'm wrong, that none of this is copyvio, that I'm completely off my rocker. But there was no "This isn't copyvio," no "This could be reformatted," not even "I think you're wrong," just "rvv" and "revert to last good version." Faced with that, at some point I was trusted enough to use my discretion to block people who act in a way that can harm Wikipedia, so I exercised that discretion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm satisified with that. I'll continue the discussion on your talk page about where to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block is patently ridiculous. AMIB has still provided no proof whatsoever that there actually is copyvio, he is most definitely an involved admin, and now he's adding a citation needed tag to the Gundam (mobile suit) article over whether the Gundam... is the Gundam. I've displayed extensively that the practice of using a summary of a unit's fictional equipment in an infobox is widespread and accepted, so he has not a leg to stand on. This is nothing more than an admin abusing his tools in order to push his POV. Jtrainor (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me there's a page where copyright violations are to be discussed. In fact I think it's mentioned somewhere below this section. Here: [58] Why isn't MIB bringing these issues there instead of setting himself up as judge and jury of copyright matters? And why is he allowed to continue to get away with blocking users with whom he has disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The horse has no bones left; please stop beating it. HalfShadow 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is being pasted from here where James Forrester like to keep things tucked away. Giano (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC #admins

I do not wish to be slandered, or even mentioned, in your #Admin's channel again. Please ensure it does not happen in future, or it will be closed down. Most editors are thoroughly sick of it and its pernicious influence on the project. I suggest you bear that in mind and control it. Giano (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your generalised concerns about abuse of the channel. As and when you have evidence of any such activity, I would greatly welcome you drawing them to my attention. However, as we have previously discussed, vague claims of you being "slandered" without context don't let me help you, and merely encourage division.

James F. (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the bloody logs of the sewer, or is it so disgusting you never go there? Giano (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lost regular IRC access for the past fortnight, so do not have a reliable set of logs.

James F. (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not the energy to read the logs have this one on me for a start: How's this "<DanielB> To Giano, who invariably reads this: You are a fucking wanker." Bad enough for you? Giano (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not remotely close to "slander", but yes, I agree that that is completely unacceptable. I will have words with Daniel. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will be having far more than a word I can assure you. Giano (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JamesF, to give you context...well, there is no context for that comment. Daniel logged into the channel, made the comment, and logged out, all within 25 seconds. And no, I did not give anyone my logs, although because you have responsibility for the channel, I will offer you my logs for the last 36 hours, which contains much of interest. This isn't okay, and it wouldn't be okay regardless of whose name was mentioned. I hope we can all agree on that. Risker (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't he an op, as well? That sort of thing needs to be discouraged in the strongest possible terms - revocation of access for such trolling wouldn't be over the top (since it is obviously trolling - no question he knew what the response would be). Avruch ^T 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Feh, trolling, ignore it. If he did not know that someone was systematically leaking the logs and thus making the channel useless for any kind of open discussion then I am sure Daniel would not have said a word. And for the record I would have absolutely no problem with a log available only to arbitrators, it's the passing-on of logs which are then used by detractors for the purposes of quote mining that I consider problematic. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fornicating masturbator isn't so bad. It generally only has a negative meaning if you're already involved in an altercation with whoever calls you that. I mean, if some random person walked past me and called me an asshole, I'd honestly think they were either deranged or had Tourette's. It certainly would qualify as "uncivil" (it was prefaced as if the target would see it, somehow), but neither slanderous nor worth "closing the channel." In fact, it's sure not worth a coronary. -t BMW c- 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, Bwilkins. If you want to bring Tourette syndrome into a completely inappropriate use of "fucking wanker" to describe Giano, at least educate yourself. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for a moment, are you suggesting I need to learn even more about Tourette than I already do? Thanks, but I have significant experience with the affliction, and indeed had an fellow writer early in my career who would use quite similar terms while sitting at the desk next to me - not specifically directed, of course. There was no insult to those afflicted. Have a nice day. -t BMW c- 13:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. Other than being a contradiction in terms it is very uncivil, while we all know that this is typical of the shennanigans that our Admins get up to in their channel - it is the rubbish that they usually tell us does not happen. Only last night one of the pseudo-Admns of the channel was telling me, on WP, that I had not been discussed for ages, when in fact I had the logs proving I had been discussed there only a few hours previously. We are far better off without the channel and being able to see just what these people are in fact doing - which is principally block shopping, wastimg their time and indulging in idle gossip. I am considering posting logs on Wikipedia as and when necessary to prove just what does go on in James Forrester's private channel. Giano (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of WP:TINC? I have two main concerns:

1. If this is a private channel for certain WP users only, or to discuss WP, then, in effect, it is a cabal, is it not?
2. If it is permitted by policy, or is not for discussing WP, and is a friends-only channel, why the hell do the private logs matter? I can call some users whatever I like - and I do - but only to my friends, and only off official channels. For example, "Yeah, I'm having loads of problems with UserA, he's being a difficult prat", to my girlfriend or close RL friends. If it's a friends-only channel, then what goes on in it is not of Giano's concern, unless it's a channel where people are meeting specifically to out him - surely? Posting logs from a private, friend-only channel would be spying. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what in effect Giano has been doing-spying. I don't care about that, but it is a private channel and I don't see how the wiki has to get involved with it. Didn't we already go over this at ArbCom with the IRC case? Until they say otherwise, we don't do anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're adding a section to AN/I because someone insulted you? That's slander now? Yet when you are uncivil to others that's supposed to be ok (don't claim you haven't said as much). While I will agree that anyone that's so childish they can't behave on an IRC channel should have their access revoked, your doublespeak apparently knows no bounds. Though I don't know why I bother commenting on this since you've long ago proven you are blind to the benefits of the channel and think that as long as people talk about you it must be banished. Clue: it's a tool and just like Wikipedia bad things go on on Wikipedia too. Should we throw that baby out with the bathwater too? - Taxman ^Talk 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well Taxman if you think it is fine for Admins and Arbs to behave in such a fashion so long as it is a secret place that ordinary editors must not know about, then that is your perogative. So why not say it has nothing what so ever to do with Wikipedia remove all Wikipedia titles etc from it. Cast it adrift. Giano (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's not what I said, I guess I don't need to say more. - Taxman ^Talk 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, everyone, just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you... And if you don't want people to call you names that make you feel bad, don't behave in a manner that causes others to hold negative opinions of your actions... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its the season, but that made me think of "If you don't want the government to arrest you for being subversive, don't vote for the other guy..." Maybe more appropriate is that old maxim about not righting a wrong with another wrong. Anyway, there is no reason to tolerate that sort of thing on the admins IRC channel - its poisonous on a number of levels (not least because it results in this sort of problem). I'm curious about the reaction to that comment in the channel - did anyone say anything against it, was it ignored, was it echoed? Avruch ^T 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a BIG difference between holding an unpopular opinion, and behaving in a rude manner. One can hold unpopular opinions, and should not be sanctioned for it. However, the holding of unpopular opinions does not also excuse behaving in a generally rude and obnoxious behavior. If you behave obnoxiously, you can't then expect that people are NOT going to react to that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel joined the channel, made the comment, and left. Nobody commented on it. I wasn't active at the time. It's clear to me that Daniel was trolling Giano there. The context of this is probably the conversation between Giano and Daniel yesterday, on Daniel's user talk page. Each of these two is egging on the other one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is asking him to desist attacking after I had assisted in tth e ublock of a wrongly blocked editor egging him on? Giano (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - is this about #wikipedia-en-admins, or a different channel? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: #wikipedia-en-admins. With that clarified, I'm disengaging here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, edit summary? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that both sides are in the wrong here? Giano has always made his opinions on civility clear, and so getting upset about the above comments seems a tad pointless (even if I and others don't see it as such.) On the other hand Daniel is not doing the project any favors. Both are baiting each other, and Giano seems to go out of his way to gather up more drama than he naturally attracts. Either way, this is about individuals, not the channel. David Fuchs 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, so no drama and let IRC do as it pleases. Good idea. The project would collapse in 6 months. Giano (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own summary

1. Giano apparently took Daniel to task over a block that Giano disagreed with

No, Daniel and I had no discussion about the block, nor was he involved with it. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People don't randomly just walk around and call people a name ... -t BMW c- 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Giano may not have actually seen the entire history of the altercation with that other editor

What altercation with the other editor? Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)''[reply]

See, you might not have known some issues Daniel was dealing with on WP -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Daniel took exception to Giano taking him to task

I only objected to him discussing me on IRC. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Daniel vented, inappropriately ... although maybe he'd had a dozen run-ins with extremely bad vandals, and this was the "last straw"?

What have I to do with vandals? Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrghh...you were NOT mentioned as a vandal, I was building "context" around an incident. -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Giano got his feelings hurt.

No, Giano will not risk less self assured edotors being driven off by this loutish behaviour. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound about right? Rule #1 of broadcast journalism: never say anything in front of a microphone that you wouldn't want the world to hear. Just because you THINK the microphone is off, doesn't mean it is. Yes, Giano should not have access to those logs, but it let's not go on a witch hunt there.

No, not in the least right. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're neither able to look at "big picture" or look at context. You're obviously never going to solve this issue, as you're focused on ONE SINGLE SOLUTION, which is never going to happen. So, start collaborating and SOLVE the problem, rather than being part of the problem. -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bwilkins, (the man with the two tone sig) I have come to the conclusion you do not have a clue what you are talking about here. Giano (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have come to the conclusion that when you don't get exactly what you want, you start to denigrate other editors who are both looking at a) the big picture and b) the betterment of the entire project and not just their own personal needs. -t BMW c- 16:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION: Giano - leave Daniel alone. Forever. Daniel - leave Giano alone. Forever. If you need to template/block him for some reason, let someone else do it (even if you have to discuss it in IRC first :-) ). -t BMW c- 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fairness

• You know, I'm left asking what would have happened if this remark had been made on wiki? Because I think that IRC incivility should not be tolerated any more or less than we tolerate incivility on wiki. There should be no allowance made for the fact that the remarks were made privately. So, an established wikipedian who called another a "wanker" on wiki, could face a 24 hour block. So, maybe Daniel should be banned fro IRC for 24 hours? On the other hand, on wiki, a civility block is very likely to be undone by someone, especially if there was no warning beforehand..... So, I'm not sure what should happen to Daniel.....except perhaps that he should face the same strong consequences for incivility that, say, Giano might face if he used similar invective on wiki. How does that sound?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sorts of comments aren't supposed to be tolerated in -en-admins, though unfortunately it depends on whether somebody is around to enforce channel rules and is willing to do so. I've personally had to +q Daniel in the channel before; these comments of his were clearly inappropriate and shouldn't be tolerated in the channel. krimpet✽ 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the IRC channel isn't part of the project. Indeed, it's not official - if you start moving it in as part of the project, then you start bringing in the possibility that decisions can be made "per IRC"... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between bad behavior on the channel being being the concern of the people at Wikipedia, and making decisions at the channel. In fact, it's the possibility of bad behavior there being of concern here which should prevent decisions being made there. Personally, I've never participated or even listened there. DGG (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ArbCom has repeatedly stated per IRC isn't a good reason for anything. If you agree with something on IRC, then it can be brought to Wikipedia. It should aid rather than thwart. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not a good reason for anything because it isn't part of the project. — Coren ^(talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a fucking... anything is bad and highly inappropriate. Leaking logs is also bad. Both are bad. And both should stop. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, you're calling them a fucking awesome contributor. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more important to address the inappropriate behavior that motivates people to leak logs, rather than just addressing the log leaking (which is extremely difficult to hunt down in such a large channel). Better to address the root cause, rather than just the resulting symptoms. krimpet✽ 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to address both. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is more important to deal with the symptoms, but the root cause needs to be addressed. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who leaked the logs is a complete red herring here. The idea that someone is not entitled to tell a third party they have been called a "fucking wanker" on IRC is absurd. There is no justification for such a comment being made and I do not think confidentiality should attach to a statement made in such a flagrant abuse of access to the channel. WJBscribe (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Traditionaly, the argument is that if the IRC (and especially en-Admins) channels were closed then the badmouthing would occur on other even more off-Wiki (because, as is being argued, there is no indication that en-WP - via ArbCom or any other body - has any real jurisdiction over them) and the good things - which are generalised as "checking the recent action by an admin was appropriate" and "finding an admin quickly" - lost. Well... let the bucketmouths find another venue for their mass debating of other peoples perceived failings because, whether it is admitted or not by the channel ops, the IRC channels have the veneer of WP endorsement due to the servers they are hosted on and the connections between the regulators and owners with WP. The fact that someone can troll or engage in behaviour not tolerated on the publicly viewable WP pages on pages apparently sanctioned by the WP hierarchy does not reflect well on that section of the community. Also, if you are unable to find an admin from the 1000+ active sysops on one of the noticeboards... well, the few that are on IRC are unlikely to want to disturb their slagfest anyhow... (and shutting down en-admins give the inhabitants less reason to be missing in action re assisting the encyclopedia).
• Shut it down already. "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a slagfest. I am there a fair bit and very rarely see incivility. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but it's certainly not part of the cultural norm of the place. On occasions where someone has gone a bit berserk in there, ops on the channel seem to have been able to control the situation (in one particular case, a long-standing contributor got kick-banned for a short period until they learned to behave). I think there is a problem of perception because historically (and certainly, when I first joined, I was absolutely disgusted and quit after only a few weeks) the place's main function appeared to be sharing dirt and stacking DRVs. Some more fair-minded users realised this was because of the absence of wider scrutiny and went on a campaign to bring in arbitrators and a wider, less insular section of the community. The other activity ceased pretty quickly thereafter. That was if my memory serves me correct June or July of 2007. In around November through to March this year something of a code of conduct came together. I think it even helps as a function to moderate some of our more action-heavy admins - they propose a completely bizarre action at admins, people tell them just how bizarre it is, and they think better of it. Orderinchaos 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am, as is obvious, pretty biased against IRC - so can you tell me what exactly the purpose en-admins serve? If a sysop needs a sanity check before an action, is there not some senior admin/editor they can canvass if they are unprepared to take it before the community (which should be fair indication that it isn't going to be uncontroversial anyway). Same thing if said admin is suspicious of certain accounts behaviour; checking publicly - with AfD considerations - is the appropriate method, not poisoning the well of admin opinion were claims might not be rebutted. The fact that Giano can, above, point out that someone has trolled the channel, and the ops were unaware indicates both that there is some continuing abuse of the venue and that violations of toc are not always noticed (let alone sanctioned). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally, very very difficult to find anyone online when in the middle of some situation where one might need advice. Been there and done that *many* times. Almost *all* actions are in some way controversial now that Wikipedia has gotten so large that it is impossible for any admin, short of those ones that spend every waking moment of every day here following all the dramas and parties and politics, to know the implications of any decision they take, even a seemingly obvious or innocent one. I think not having en-admins would decrease the quality of admin decisions. I'd point to the Ashley Todd situation last week as one where I took an action off my own bat and several en-admins people, even those who agreed with my decision, talked me into retracting it in order to reduce Wikidrama. That check or balance would not have happened without the channel as it was 3 or 4 am in my time zone, and the people I talk to on gtalk would not have been awake and may not have noticed, given their editing interests lie elsewhere. Orderinchaos 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot hold channel ops who weren't online responsible for something they didn't see, or channel ops who were online responsible for a hit-and-run of this nature. Nobody is at fault here other than DanielB, who clearly acted inappropriately there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fault is with the user who made the remark. I'm concerned that the user, user:Daniel, holds positions that require impartiality and discretion. I see that Daniel was the clerk of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley in which Giano was a party. I'd hope that he wouldn't act in that capacity in any future cases where he's expressed such a strong opinion about the parties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... someone was insulted, in a semi-private place, where they couldn't see the insult (until someone showed them), so we're supposed to shut it down? I could almost understand the level of drama this caused if it happened in public, like on-wiki, or perhaps in a public channel. If this had happened in a different private channel or a private discussion between 2 people would it still be a problem? If we shut down every form of communication because someone got insulted on it and threw a fit, we'd be left with ... nothing. The gist of this discussion is basically that people shouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about anyone, anywhere, ever, where someone else might see it. Other users are humans and we aren't the thought police. Where is the harm here? Nothing would have been permanently recorded (until the insult was pasted here so it will be archived forever with the rest of this section). Can we all go back to doing something productive now? Mr.Z-man 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a single example of impetuous behaviour by one individual. Had it had any import (i.e. resulted in an action on-wiki) or turned into a channel-wide denunciation of the user concerned, there'd be more cause for concern. As it stands, someone delivered an intemperate comment probably "for the lulz" (which were not by any evidence presented shared), should be cautioned by the IRC ops against doing so again, and the lines of text being generated over the one line can come to a close. Orderinchaos 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

It seems to me as if:

1. Giano is acting inappropriately by reading logs he's not permitted to read. Giano needs to stop looking for trouble, and stop reading administrator channel logs until he gets the mop. Any other user would get banhammered fast for spying on logs, and the only reason he isn't being is that it would split the community if he was blocked. I understand his concerns, and I'd probably do the same, but we need to have higher standards than this.

   I see so it's OK to act like that in the channel if no one knows. Shoot the messenger. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Daniel is acting in such a way as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, both with Giano and others. His edit summaries and messages are at times abusive, and I think he knows that they need improving. I have no doubt he's good at OTRS, and at other things he does, but an admin should never insult another user, for any reason.
3. In conclusion, both parties need to be topic banned from each other. And Giano needs to stop reading logs. If he's got concerns, he should take them up - politely - with the channel ops, but it's not a Wikipedia matter any more than WW or WR are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I did and Forrester asked for proof, Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I support this rational, balanced and objective summary by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This seems a fair assessment of the problems. This is a situation where neither side did anything defensable, and both should bear some blame for needless stirring up trouble. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, logs should (ideally) not leak. But if someone sends me a log and tells me I'm mentioned in it, I will read it. Can't really blame Giano for that. I think he's overreacted, especially since he's not exactly delicate on civility. As people have learned not to over-react to Giano's directness with his opinions on others, Giano should learn the same when he's the subject of such. But reading logs.....not a sin.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Scott MacDonald; you are trying to convict Giano of reading a log to which they are not entitled, sent to him by a third party (I am surprised there isn't a posse/hanging party out looking for that "villain"), concerning an entry by which someone else completely violating the rules of the channel by denigrating Giano in foul and abusive language solely in an effort to irritate and create a reaction from Giano... Cml,I'mtC, this is the first time I have seen you miss the target but Giano is not the guilty party; it is the coward (who has not participated in this discussion) who made the offensive comment in an effort to provoke such a response. Without the initial comment there would have been nothing on which to castigate Giano for responding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Banhammered for looking at logs? Is that really true? I mean, if IRC is completely separate from WP, and people can't be banned on WP for what they say on IRC, how can someone be banned for looking at the logs? IronDuke 00:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I wish I had your smarts! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hush :P . I know what you mean, but my point still stands, chaps: We don't know how he got the logs, and at the end of the day the channel is secure. There are ways to deal with problems on IRC, reading logs then shouting about them in a public forum, whether given to you by someone or gotten in some other way, is not the way to do it. Giano should have gone to the ops when he found this out, and let them deal with it. Equally, however, Daniel should be looking at a stern talking to. LHVU - this is a sincere request - come and lurk in the IRC channel. You'll see it's nothing more than a friendly forum where people can ask for help. Like #wikipedia, but with more mature humour and the occasional amusing link thrown in. I'm not suggesting Giano should be banhammered - but imagine what would happen to a new user if they were 'spying' on the chatroom - they'd get more than Giano would get, yes? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need to rely on the privileged nature of the forum protecting the miscreant for uttering the offending verbiage to de-escalate potential problems; it should not be permitted in the first instance... I'm sorry, and I have noted my bias regarding IRC previously, but I have no interest in participating in this anomaly; a venue run by WP "high ups", populated by WP admins, discussing WP related matters, but having no authority from WP and no means of redress via WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Giano should have gone to the ops when he found this out, and let them deal with it" Exactly what I did - and was aked on wiki for proof. I provided it Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I want everyone in participation in this discussion to remember something very important - Daniel is a long-standing, highly valued administrator who does great work for the project, both in terms of content contributons and maintanance. It is not typical of him to call people "wankers". Therefore, the most I endorse with this incident is a trout to the face. Likewise, Giano is a quality editor who's writing skills are practically brilliant. He may be blunt and sometimes even tackless in some of his dealings, but all the good he does for the encyclopedia is truly to an exemplary standard. Poking around in other IRC conversations is intrusive, but Giano can be forgiven. He, also, should garner a good trouting.

• I agree with topic banning them from each other. They clearly aren't overly compatible with each other, and it would be best if they stayed out of one another's way.

Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit the same topics as Daniel. I have never had any contact with him before, his attack. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master: Well said. that's the point I was trying to make. A slapped wrist to them both, and we'll leave it at that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cav, I'm still confused about the banning for IRC thing, hope I'm not being thick. (LHVU, were you saying you wished you had my smarts?) IronDuke 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yours... theirs... anybodies... I ain't choosy, and I reckon they would come in usefull... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (small "v" btw)[reply]

I guess it's hard to describe. The logs shouldn't be reposted without permission from all involved - this much is mentioned as soon as you join. I very much doubt Giano will reveal his sources for the logs, so we're left with about 3-400 admins who have to be very careful what they say - even in jest - because it will invariably be taken out of context if posted. I don't see why Giano needs to spy on the channel. When I talk about my girlfriend's medical condition in there, I don't want it being posted around some secret mailing list for all to see. It's a private channel, and I'd like it to stay that way - with oversight by a few trusted users, if required - but if I'm talking to my friends about anything, I don't want it subsequently read, used against me and taken out of context by people I hardly know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you discuss your girlfriend's medical condition in an open chatroom with a group of strangers....Well, not a lot I can say to that one. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I knew all that. I can absolutely see how posting logs would get you kicked off the IRC, if it were known. But I cannot see how it would have repercussions onwiki, especially as it doesn't go the other way, ie, that things said on IRC are blockworthy here. Without picking a side here, I'd also agree that if someone was saying negative stuff about me on IRC, I'd like to know, and "privacy" concerns would hold little weigh with me in that context. IronDuke 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot the messenger. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If reposting logs is banned on IRC, then the punishment takes place on IRC. Otherwise, everyone's actions on so-called 'Wikipedia' IRC channels becomes subject to the official policies and scrutiny of Wikipedia (which is what several ArbCom cases revolved around). I hope that when Cavalry is talking about banning for "spying" on IRC, he is talking about IRC ops banning people from IRC, not people being banned from Wikipedia. I suspect loose talk about "banhammering" (a horrible word, anyway) without saying whether the reference is to IRC or Wikipedia, has led to the confusion here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question. I was under the impression that permanent logs were being kept by arbitrators of the activity in the admins IRC channel to allow independent review if needed. Is that still being done? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't care what happens there. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way up at the top Jdforrester notes that his logs don't include the period including this particular event - it seems possible, likely even, that he is the person who supplies ArbCom with the channel logs upon request. This whole thing is a simple channel management problem that doesn't need to become a big community-wide debate. By and large, the volume of problems originating from IRC has gone way down. Daniel should probably have his #wikipedia-en-admins channel access suspended for some fixed or indefinite period, and everyone should go back to doing something else. Avruch ^T 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all phooey. Giano complaining that someone used rude invective against him? Pot meet kettle. If Daniel should be sanctioned for these remarks, then it should be with the same measure that we deal with Giano. (That is no sanction at all.) No, I don't blame Giano for reading logs - if anyone sends me sekrit logs and tells me I'm mentioned, I'm sure to read. The real villain of the peace here is whoever sent Giano the logs. Not so much because logs were confidential, but because it is hard not to assume their motive was not pure trolling. Sitting anonymously somewhere and using your access to deliberately poke sticks in the cage to get the inevitable reaction is disruption of the worst type - the leaker should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. If the leaker had a problem with the Daniel they should have gone to the ops - telling an explosive, habitually incivil, editor that someone was incivil about him, was never going to do anything other than cause a drama and was a fruitless waste of time.—Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right shoot the messenfer leave the problem. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On a procedural level, if ArbCom doesn't sanction people for comments in IRC then is that anything the community should do? If that's what Daniel wrote then he should be ashamed of himself, and the chanops should be taking appropriate action. Yet it's hard to suppose restricting him on-wiki would be anything other than punitive: had the proposed restriction already been in place it wouldn't have prevented him from posting that at IRC, and wouldn't prevent that from happening again. The community rejected BADSITES soundly, and one of the associated principles is that only a very narrowly defined range of off-wiki actions is actionable on-wiki. If an editor posts coercive threats elsewhere we can siteban them here, and off-wiki canvassing would be actionable, but matters of incivility are best taken up with the local venue where the incivility occurred. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the kind of behaviour we're going to get in that channel, then I say thank the Lord for those willing to leak logs for helping keep that channel accountable to the community. (And no, I do not leak logs myself.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most sensible comment I have read here - and no he did not! Giano (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has boycotted IRC for years, and who's gotten heads up from time to time about being the target of nastiness, I can't quite agree. The first step ought to be to have a private word with the person who posts something that rude, or bring it to the chanops' attention. Log sharing should be a last resort. And for something of this nature--just an obscene potshot--there's hardly a need to defend oneself. It's the sort of thing mature adults normally handle discreetly or rise above. Durova^Charge! 09:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you seriously suggesting Durova that editors should turn a blind eye to the insults of the IRC #admin's ratpack? This time they picked on one well able to defend himself - what happens on the occasions when the editor is not? He is just driven off or walks off in disgust. Shame on you Durova for even thinking such a thing. I will always point out the many shortcoming of that Arbcom sanctioned sewer. Giano (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, the chanops are the best place to go. They usually respond pretty well, and if for some reason they didn't it'd make a more persuasive case to come to ANI or some other venue afterward. Yet really, letting stuff like that go actually is what I've done. It says far more about the person who posted it than it does about you (or me or anybody who gets targeted in a cheap manner). Rising above such things isn't passivity; it's an active demonstration of who's the wiser person.

Maybe that's easier from the perspective of being able to join the channel, but refusing to. Years ago I used to own a motorcycle and it was much easier to sit in Los Angeles freeway traffic knowing I could weave between the cars and get out of there, but choosing not to. So yeah, if you're stuck in the SUV I see your point, and I didn't intend the statement in any demeaning manner. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most nonsensical crap I've read in a while. We have people going on about how the channel is supposed to be separate from Wikipedia, but we want people to be sanctioned for things said in the channel that had no effect on Wikipedia until the logs were released to someone they shouldn't have been, and then the ANI drama machine fired up. Yes, Daniel should not have made that comment. But, the logs should not have been released to Giano, and this ANI thread should not have been started (the only purpose I can guess is to cause drama). 3 wrongs don't make a right. Yes, people leave Wikipedia when they get insulted, but they also leave when they get fed up with the wiki-thought-police trying to condemn everything as an act of incivility. What's said in an (ideally) private location to a few people does not deserve the same treatment as something said in a public forum. Are we going to start tapping the phones and intercepting the mail of Wikipedians to make sure they aren't saying anything bad about other Wikipedians there as well? Last I checked, we're all humans, we don't have to like everyone and we don't have to keep all negative emotions to ourselves. Mr.Z-man 19:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All present drama aside, IRC is a tool

As someone who has a great deal of difficulty communicating clearly in written form without the ability for real-time interactive clarification, I find IRC to be quite useful. On-wiki communication options (especially very busy pages..) are extremely difficult for me to follow, much less participate in. By the time I've managed to compose what I want to say in a semi-coherent form, the discussion has moved on.. I can't tell you how many times I've spent half an hour working on a few sentances, ended up edit conflicted - then discovered that what I was going to say was no longer relevant due to other developments. At least on IRC I can spit out my thought & follow up with a clarification. IRC is a tool, no better nor worse than the individuals who use it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again.. Individuals are responsible for their own conduct... the medium shouldn't be condemned just because a few individuals behave improperly. --Versageek 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

FWIW, DanielB has op access on other channels, and has discussed me often in private channels, such as the OTRS one, calling me names along the lines of "wanker", "asshole" etc. Giano is not alone as the receiving end of abuse. Additionally, DanielB abused op rights and kicked me from the open OTRS channel for no reason whatsoever, then banned me when I was asleep - I had to contact an OTRS admin to have the ban removed, and the admin agreed the ban was highly inappropriate. I asked Daniel about this, over on Meta-wiki: his response: "because". It's utterly disgraceful someone like this is representing Wikipedia, both as an administrator, and an OTRS respondant. He needs to grow up and get off his power trip. It's embarrassing watching it. It's because of people like him I no longer volunteer for OTRS, or assist in its related IRC channels. Al Tally ^talk 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this comment off into its own subsection. OTRS, arguably, is more crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia than the en-admins channel, and deals with more sensitive private information and public relations areas, as far as I'm aware. If there is inappropriate behaviour in the OTRS channel and this affects how the OTRS system works, that is something that people should be concerned about. So I would ask the following: "What is the connection between the official Wikipedia:OTRS system and the OTRS IRC channel?" Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it is quite official. The open channel is for users who are not on OTRS, who can ask questions of agents (such as "Does x ticket say n thing?" or "I need a permissions check".) All agents are voiced. The private channel is open to only users with access to the "info-en" queue - the one that deals with common complaints (such as vandalism, errors in articles, FAQs, as well as the "quality" issues such as sensitive BLP enquiries - often dealing with the subject). The private channel is a fairly recent creation - the biggest difference to the open one is that contents of tickets can be openly discussed, since only "trusted" users have access. The channels are run by the OTRS admins (most active being Cary Bass, Guillom, and Jredmond), and a handful of ops, afaik, they are Rjd0060, Cbrown1023 and DanielB. I'd say they are pretty official. On the private wiki, for example, there is a page one can use to request access to the private channel. Since it's run by the administration, I think it's the official channel. Al Tally ^talk 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No channels are officially official, as far as I know, and there is no way of legislating to prevent people getting annoyed and venting. Mining for such examples and then presenting them without context is hardly an act of good faith. And these are really very trivial attacks (especially compared with, say, what User:ParalelUni has written about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica). Since these events have not taken place on Wikipedia I don't see much need to discuss them here; if you have a problem with what Daniel has written in the OTRS channels then I recommend you talk to Cary about it, as Cary can probably resolve the issue without escalating it further. And if anyone is leaking the OTRS channels then we have a very serious problem as these may contain personal data. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect an ED writer to be the politest of people. I would expect someone like Daniel (long term admin here, Meta, Wikinews, OTRS agent, board election committee, op on several IRC channels) to be a lot better behaved than that. I spoke to Cary (and to Jredmond). Cary ignored my private message, and Jredmond listened, but didn't really do anything about it. Daniel, as far as I know, still has access, and is still acting incredibly immaturely, be it in the OTRS channel or the admins channel. If Cary doesn't think it's a problem, that's Cary's business. I very much find it a problem. Al Tally ^talk 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Majorly: I can confirm your statement that the #wikimedia-otrs channel is open to all users, and that non-OTRS agents are still welcome. I myself have idled in the channel for some months with zero incident. AGK 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear, AGK. Daniel obviously doesn't have personal issues with you. Al Tally ^talk 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary: IRC should still be avoided for managing, against all expectations, to actually be worse than nothing at all. Nandesuka (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all totally amazing isn't it? I assist in the unblock of an editor who was wrongly blocked. For this, I am then attacked on IRC. I then post in wiki requesting not to be attacked on IRC. A "Pseudo-Admin" then says I imagined it. Then logs prove I did not - he retracts. Then I'm attacked on IRC again "fucking wanker" So I ask James Forester to ensure it does not happen again. He asks for proof. He gets it. I'm then attacked by many IRC users here for complaining about it. Funny old world isn't it? I'm afraid, IRC wants us all just to put up and shut up. Giano (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which user did you help unblock who was wrongly blocked? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found Daniel to be rude to some people before, on wiki. But don't expect anything to be done about it because as someone said the other day, in most organizations the further you go up the ranks the better the standard of behaviour expected of you, but on wiki the further you go up the ranks, the more leeway you're given to misbehave.:) Sticky Parkin 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Which is the same reason Giano is still around after all his name-calling. There's really no issue here that needs admin intervention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new era has dawned courtesy of #Admins.

This consensus of this discussion, and indifference by the Arbcom, has now made me realise we are entering a new period of "free for all", any wikipedia editor can level any personal insult at any user of #admins that s/he cares to, and in return #Admins can carry on as normal. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Civility policies anywhere are now dead and buried and unenforceable. Giano (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done yet? HalfShadow 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, civility has been dead on the wiki for a while. #admins is just playing catchup with you.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like the true IRCAdmin that you "are." and I don't think I have ever called anyone a "fucking wanker" but there you are, there's always a first time. Giano (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some accusations that have been levelled at me have, at times, hurt. However, inarticulate scatological invective is really not up high in my top ten things that upset me. But YMMV.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not scatological insult. The problem is that a message has been conveyed that suggests certain editors who are unpopular with the IRC cabal may be attacked without fear. As it happens, the folks who control IRC also control ArbCom, so if you happen to disagree with their management of the channel, you have no recourse except an appeal to the public. There is a reason other civilized countries have a separation of powers within their governments. No matter how benign a oligarchy starts out, the excessive concentration of power inevitably leads to corruption. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message was conveyed long ago by some that civility was dead on wiki. Now to go around playing rabble-rousing power politics by demanding it be enforced off-wiki is just laughable. But I can't say I'm either surprised or bothered by the irony. I've given up expecting any civility.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The failings of certain individuals aside, civility is still expected on wiki and I think it is dreadful to suggest otherwise. Dragons flight (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected from whom? Most of us have long given up that expectation, along with watching for an imminent parousia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be becoming an admin? - or just lurking in the channel? Giano (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]Am I the only one thinking this horse is beginning to smell? The world ain't perfect, get used to it, now let's all move on. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Aquatique is a frequent user of #Admins so we can dismiss his views on this subject. Giano (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Can we archive this thread, please? Protonk (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Civility is not so much the issue here as the underhandedness of doing it in a closed forum that is still used as a decision-making tool of sorts. Even WR is better than that in that can be freely accessed by anyone. #Admins is nothing but a cabal-breeding cesspool and should be treated as such. More importantly, the issue of IRC leaking aside, it's unacceptable for anyone to not disclose, where applicable, the simple fact that they took part in an opinion-forming off-wiki discussion. Need not contain details, but there is a bright line between legitimate privacy and purposeful dishonesty. Everyme 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • How does this one channel qualify as a cabal-breeding cesspool, but not any other IRC channel, email, IM, skype, or voice telephone conversation? It would be absurd (as well as unenforceable) to require people to state any time they have thought about an issue, or raised it with another person, before posting on the wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not talking about "enforcing" anything. Honesty cannot be enforced like that. But it's still relevant and it should go without saying that anyone should disclose the simple fact of having participated in a forum where many experienced and active Wikipedians (not to mention: admins) participate. Just a matter of politeness and sincerity. Look at it the other way around: Would it diminish my trust in an admin if I found out that they participated in off-wiki discussion with many active Wikipedians which can plausibly be assumed to have a formative effect on their opinion as put into fact by actions on Wikipedia, without disclosing the fact they participated in such discussion? Yes, very much so. To the extent that I wouldn't trust them with the tools anymore, actually. Intellectual dishonesty is despicable. Straightforwardness should be encouraged at every turn. Not "enforced", as that's not possible. But encouraged. Are you arguing it should be discouraged ? Everyme 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's going to happen now?

I notice this thread has been archived away; swept under the rug so to speak, try to hide this disgraceful incident. I want to know several things: hopefully I will be able to do it in a more civil manner than Giano, who I very much agree with.

Was anything at all done about this behaviour, on the channel? I mean, was there any sanction given, what "words" were said. As myself and Krimpet, and others have said above, Daniel has a history of poor behaviour in the channel (and ironically, it was he who was advocating my removal from there). How long is this going to be tolerated for?

Other issues: why are there arbitrators in charge of the channel? (FT2, James F, Deskana, Dmcdevit (former), YellowMonkey etc). It's hardly surprising nothing gets done about the damage the channel is doing, when the people who are supposedly dealing with it, are the ones running it. Another question, is the channel being logged for private use by ArbCom so that incidents like this can be swiftly dealt with? I heard it was, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Do not archive this thread: this is not over. Al Tally ^talk 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should something be done? It's off-Wiki, it's in a channel that is not officially endorsed by WP. We have the right and we reserve the right to say anything about anyone, much like how people will go to WR and other sites and say whatever about anybody with no negative recourse here. People are crying over spilled milk here, and especially as to who the complaint is coming from, makes this "complaint" even more worthless. seicer | talk | contribs 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend that just because it's not "officially" endorsed makes it completely separate. It's run by our arbitrators, and only administrators from this website are allowed in there. It may be off-wiki, but it's part of Wikipedia, like it or not. And don't claim that things said off-site get ignored here, because they don't - I shouldn't have to give examples. Al Tally ^talk 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, fact is, it's being used as an opinion-forming tool and AFAIK discussions there frequently lead directly to decisions on-wiki. Everyme 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but if someones acts on something "per IRC" he must be able to stands by his action as an individual. IRC is a way to gather opinions on something, not a decision making process. Majorly, if you are concerned about Daniel's OTRS related actions, I suggest you discuss it with an OTRS admin. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already, but apparently his conduct ("wanker" "fucker" "arsehole" etc) is acceptable for someone representing the foundation. It's not my problem, but Wikimedia's. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell Daniel has been inactive both on IRC and on Wikipedia since the incident. I have no idea if James F or a channel op has contacted him privately, and until Daniel comments we'll probably not know.

The statement "the people who are supposedly dealing with it, are the ones running it." makes no sense at all. First, Freenode runs the channel under the direct control of James F, not arbcom. On the other hand, the only way for arbcom members to enforce anything on the channel is for them to be ops, which is why they're ops. So they don't "run" the channel, but they have the ability to remove people from the channel if/when needed. There are other ops who are not on arbcom - are those people also "running" the channel? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole IRC/Arbcom is too incestuous [60] the Arbs do nothing because they know that IRC are the ones that vote for them and keep them where they are. When the Arbs decided to examine IRC#admins, who did they appoint to examine? Why, non other than our old friend FT2 - the darling of IRC - no wonder he found no problem. How much longer are we going to keep taking this rubbish from this so called Arbcom/Chanop committee? Giano (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James F is on ArbCom. While James doesn't really "run" the channel, it's certainly the case FT2 does, along with the other ops. And the thing is, they clearly don't remove people, or at least not permanently. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we've opened this thread up again, surely we have some plan as to what will be accomplished by further flagellation of this issue. Both Seicer and Everyme are right, unfortunately. Siecer is right that no one in this noticeboard has the ability or the right to do anything that Majorly or giano would like (shut the channel down or open the logs up). But Everyme is absolutely right that admin IRC has an architectural tendency to produce cliquish behavior and obscure motivation and history to the majority of editors. Saying that "nothing is done per IRC" is neither accurate nor important. No one leaves the IRC channel and says "we decided to block you on IRC, so you are blocked". But that doesn't mean that decisions don't get made and opinions don't get hardened there. Having said that, what purpose does this thread serve? How many more people need to say "boy, that was a shitty thing to say but it doesn't really point to some fundamental flaw" and "This is an example of admin cabalism, etc.."? Protonk (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has become yet another vent for Giano's many consistent tirades against administrators and "cabals" that include those who participate at IRC and other discussion forums, and is one with no set conclusion. To be frank, IRC is not administered by Wikipedia, Jimbo or any other group -- Freenode runs the channel under James F. as stated above; not the Arbitration Committee. Going to the Committee for this petty incident will result it in being declined. So what else can you do? Beat the dead horse down to ashes? Or is this only going to serve to further your agenda? seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think comments that Giano should have pursued other avenues of complaint before coming to this board should detract from the fact that he has a totally legitimate grievance. No one should be surprised given his history with the channel that he has been as angered by these events as he is. The admin channel is not a forum for abusive language to be used about other Wikipedians. It is my opinion from my involvement in the channel that such incidents are very rare and do not reflect the overwhelming majority of discourse in the channel - however much others seem to believe otherwise. That said, the current rarity of such incidents does not excuse them and I expect action to be taken in response to this matter. I note that Giano appears to have received no apology for the comment. I am also disappointed at the apparent defensiveness I read in responses to Giano. It seems to me that the original insult has only been compounded by them - grilling someone about how they found out they were called a fucking wanker is not going to create a positive impression of the dispute resolution process. "Go away Giano and stop complaining about IRC" is not an appropriate way to respond to a legitimate complaint. WJBscribe (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have put it better myself. Yes, the channel is mostly harmless, but the few times it isn't, it can be disasterous. This is a serious matter, and it doesn't help when people like Seicer try to dismiss it as "Giano trolling" or whatever. While I don't necessarily agree with Giano's methods here, I completely and utterly see where he's coming from, as I am in the same boat as him. I also have never received any form of apology whatsoever from my own experience of Daniel's abusive behaviour. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You attributed your "quote" to the wrong individual. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the "or whatever" part. It means you didn't say those exact words. Here are the words you did say, that basically mean the same thing: "This has become yet another vent for Giano's many consistent tirades" "Or is this only going to serve to further your agenda?". Al Tally ^talk 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I am a fairly regular participant on the admins irc channel). The admins channel is an interesting problem. In a house with glass walls, it is pretty much the only room with opaque walls - it is not surprising that there are people that find it questionable, given how transparent the decision making process is in other aspects.

Administrator conduct must be open for review. For all the jokes about cabals, we can and should not go down the path where people in the in clique can make decisions without review. But then again, a place where administrators can consult and contact each other privately for advice is unquestionably useful. A teacher might need to consult with colleagues discuss how to grade a paper; that does not mean it should be done in front of the student or open for anyone to see the discussion. The same applies to admins wanting feedback on potentially problematic user conduct. Likewise many of these discussions should be kept private; not for the admins sake but for the user's. It serves no purpose for other students to see the discussion on how a fellow student is graded, and can be used against them. But the problem is that the same confidentiality can be used to hide problems.

My conclusion so far is that the channel is a net positive after all. That does not mean it couldn't be improved. My preferred solution which I've advocated on channel is that the logs should be opened up, but with a time delay of n months. Long enough to not to cause or prolong endless drama on the issue of the day, but short enough that any misconduct can be addressed and any systematic problems be addressed.

Another option would be to have a review board, separate from arbcom and the admin community, for example of trusted non-admins and give them read-only access with a mandate to review the content and discussions. The substantiative complaint of Giano is that the review board of the channel is the same as the users - a viewpoint I find valid. Simply put: External review usually works better. henrik•talk 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, but I want to reinforce something said above - if the arbitration committee is to have the technical ability to enforce any decisions they arrive at upon review, then members of the committee (or clerks, perhaps) must be channel operators. That they are channel operators for this reason doesn't make them de facto "part of the channel" and incapable of reviewing complaints against conduct in the channel. Not being a member, I can't verify that they are ops primarily to engage in conduct review - but maybe someone can clarify that directly. Avruch ^T 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 6 accounts blocked: 5 for multiple accounts/username, 1 for username Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange one. The new user log shows several of these in numerical order being created within minutes of each other. We're up to number six as of now. I've left a note of concern here with number one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matches the name of a company. Block per policy? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me they're not here to flesh out all the articles linked from Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has the smell of an automated tool. Might ask them whether they created the account in the usual way, or are experimenting with an account-creating tool, or something. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but in regards to Gwen's comment, we may never know.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to remind everyone this but WP:U states that Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, I agree with you that the accounts are suspicious enough to be blocked on sight but please do not make the Username policy harsher than it is in reality. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are removing discussion from the talk page of Barack Obama and then deleting the edit. This is harmful to WP because we NEEED to discuss things. By removing the discussion, the end result is that things are being hidden.

The administrative action needed is to warn people not to remove comments from the discussion. (this is not a content dispute). The edit was done by BBBH who just summarized the sub-article. The sub-article mentions that Obama's first election: he got everyone disqualified so that he would run unopposed.

This is not vandalism.

There are violent supporters of Obama. We need to maintain neutrality of the article and state the facts. If we allow removal of the edit and the discussion, we have defacto censorship, not neutral writing. Midemer (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply diffs? Removing talk page comments can be allowed, but there needs to be good reasons.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations, plain and simple. The account making this report has been attempting to include BLP-violating material, and start discussions on a blatantly BLP-violating topic that has no hope of being included in the article ever. The claim that Barack Obama disqualified all his opponents in his state legislative career, as made here, is unsubstantiated gossip. There is no evidence whatsoever Obama had anything to do with his opponent's divorce records being released whatsoever. --GoodDamon 22:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midemer needs to be given a warning about adding potentially libelous info to articles. Remind the user about the sourcing all additions to wikipedia and to assume good faith. --neon white talk 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In one edit, she even compares him to Kim Il Sung - not very neutral... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user was also informed of the Obama article probation, and then again added back the unreferenced BLP violation. Note that this all began with their 5th edit ever made, yet they knew enough to immediately come here. ~ priyanath ^talk 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this user - 15 months ago, in their last edit before today - opposed redirecting Obama to Barack Obama because "they were looking for someone else named Obama" ([61]). So their relationship with the truth is also pretty suspect. Nothing much to do here except to revert any more edits like the current ones. Black Kite 23:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered why Wikipedia allowed the deletion of entries from the discussion pages. It's an opportunity for fraud and what useful function does it serve?Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree; article histories (let alone talk page histories) aren't indexed by search engines, and unless the contribution has edit summary vandalism or includes dangerous personal information (i.e., a typical oversight situation), I don't see the purpose of deleting said contributions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Direct deletion from talk pages isn't done often, but without that people could make personal attacks, leave unsourced material, or the like. This editor was replacing material that directly compared Obama to Kim Jong Il. It doesn't seem like a stretch to say that doesn't fit with WP:BLP. That's something that doesn't need to even be brought up without a reliable source, so it wouldn't be discussed on the talk page either. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short block requested for bad behavior and POV pushing

I know that Barack Obama is a controversial article. Another editor added a sentence which was a summary of information covered in the sub-article (was about Obama getting all his opponents off the Illinois Senate ballot so he ran unopposed). I never edited the sub-article so I have no conflict of interest.

This is not about the edit content but improper behavior of GoodDamon. Good Damon needs a short block.

GoodDamon removed a legimate discussion on the talk page. This kills discussion and isn't what Wikipedia is about. This is very disruptive. A non-disruptive editor would calmly allow discussion.

This is what GoodDamon removed...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=249122163&oldid=249121591 He says he is removing vandalism, but this is clearly an excuse.

Midemer (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midemer has reverted 3 times against consensus on Barack Obama, which is on article probation. He was notified of the article probation after his first revert. He can and should be blocked. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to just be an attempt at continuation of the above thread, here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Agree with Priyanath. :Midemer has claimed consensus [62] to reinsert a very contentious sentence into a WP:BLP. His report here is a response to being reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why hasn't he been sent on a short vacation yet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent, ec] Per an earlier discussion which established that BLP violations would be dealt with stricter on the pages I recently unprotected, I have blocked Midemer for 24 hours for edit warring and disruption. However, I also suggest to GoodDamon not to remove talk page posts for maximum transparency. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, he's fast. Posted an unblock request before I even got around to posting a block notice... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• note: User:GoodDamon isn't "removing" discussion. The same thing has been archived multiple times. He is simply removing repeats as the editor was persistent and fully intent to war on the article talk page. Digital^Ninja 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. My full apologies. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the election draws closer, attempts to insert material of an undue weight and unsuitable nature have reached a fever pitch. If I get a little overzealous, it's because this has been a literally exhausting experience. Single-purpose accounts, or accounts that haven't edited in ages, have been showing up on an almost hourly basis to try to add the latest campaign talking points to the article, and it gets hard not to assume they're all just meat/sockpuppets trying to turn Wikipedia into an extension of the campaign or make utterly inappropriate accusations on the talk page. So I don't see any need for you to apologize; you were reacting to perceived shortness on my part, and I really was beginning to get rather short. --GoodDamon 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I shall apologize to you whenever I want! But seriously, I think frustration is a fairly valid emotion at the point in time. Just remember, you have to get through one more day and then the pages will be protected until this is all over. Then, we can all go to sleep for about a month to make up for all the late nights. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with wp is the result looks like manipulation by supporters

the editors and administers in question may not be campaign workers, let's assume they are not. however, their actions would be exactly what a campagin would do. some people removed legit discussions comments, removed the edit, and banned the user midimer. they said they would warn the person who deleted the discussion comments (not ban them) but they didn't even do this.

we must think hard before administers do things and see if what they would do would be like a campaign supporter. in wpikipedia, we must strive for the object encyclopedia, not play partisan politics. BBBH (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conclusion: i quit, at least for the forseable future. so the disruptive users have chased soemeone away so they are left to manipulate wikipedia. administers should beware of these tactics. they work. see, they are aggressive and i leave, leaving only POV pushers and students left. goodbye. BBBH (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some friendly advice[63] at this user's talk page explaining why his edits were reverted. He unfortunately ran into the steamroller of Wikipedia policy; a heated election article; and his strong feelings about the candidate. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I don't edit political articles. I've too much of an opinion to approach it with any amount of dispassion, let alone the dispassion WP:NPOV requires. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you return you would do well to observe the rules about assuming good faith and to read through discussions properly. --neon white talk 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have also responded to BBBH at Talk:Barack Obama with some good friendly advice. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you..." ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we've lost someone with an agenda? Oh, boo hoo. HalfShadow 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way; our articles on Barack and McCain are still more neutral than this and that. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of a left handed compliment. :) Protonk (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're left handed, are all compliments you give also left handed? ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but I re-read the Obama article on conservapedia. That is always good for a laff. Man...just crazy. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need some more laughs, watch Keith Olbermann and count down the lies spread by the right-wingers during the campaign. Although if the Republicans get clobbered on Tuesday, Olbermann might become insufferable for at least a week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a bad liberal, but I liked Olbermann when he was the only one in broadcast (basically) standing up to bush et al. more then when he became a standard liberal exponent. That's not really his fault, as the democrats' star rose, he became less the lone voice of reason and more of a simply hyperbolic voice. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like political news done as if it were SportsCenter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user refuses to follow and or read the non-free content policy, repeatedly violates it and reverts good faith edits within policy as vandalism. β^_command 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into a "pissing match" about this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:55

Why are you reverting my edits that are 100% within policy? β^_command 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because when you claim a image doesn't have an F-UR when it does, that is vandalism. Now, you are officially talking to yourself, OK? I am off to find a Vicodin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:59

the image in question has a rationale for a separate page. there are no rationales for the pages where I am removing it. β^_command 06:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, I am not getting into a pissing match, you are talking to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:02

A little background would be nice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user claims that per a email from mike godwin (Foundation counsel) that our Non-free content policy is void and that fair use is standard, (with liberal usage of copyrighted images). Obviously that is incorrect. I attempted to explain, but he refuses to listen and read what I link to. So I started spot checking his uploads and ensure that they are within policy. I found a few that had been uploaded by others that failed WP:NFCC so I started tagging them, he considers this vandalism and returns to his old habits of mis-using twinkle. β^_command 06:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Image:WVNS-DT2.PNG this image wasn't F-UR'd to his liking. Currently, though, we were in a pretty heated discussion here and here about Image Galleries (Fair-Use or NFCC). He made several edits to WVNS-TV and I reverted and that turned into a revert war and us both Warn4im'ing each other. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:13

Comment - At the time this entry was listed, the logo in question had a valid fair use rationale for the article in which it was being used. There had previously been a revert war, but it could have been avoided had the complainant simply added a fair use rationale for the image in question rather than deleting its use in the article. Likewise, had the subject of this complaint added the fair use rationale before reverting, there would have been no cause for continuation of the war. I see no reason for sanctions, as both parties share blame. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take partial blame (as Dhett said) for the revert war on the above mentioned image. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:27

may I also point out List of animals in The Simpsons's history where NeutralHomer stalks my edits and ignores policy? β^_command 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To "stalk" your edits, I would have edited on each and every page you did...which I didn't and don't have time to do. I looked at your edits, thought you were "jumping the gun" before the discussion was over and reverted. You reverted back and templated me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:35

Only if I may point out the truth: you originally removed the images as copyright violations without explaining why they were such, then when NeutralHomer reverted, asking for a discussion, you again deleted the images, claiming violation of NFCC #8, a totally different reason than copyright violation. When he again reverted, questioning your reason for deleting and citing that the images had passed legal muster, you again deleted the images and accused NeutralHomer of vandalism. Your conduct is appalling. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've been looking through this dispute, and it seems to come down to this:

Fair Use is a legal concept in the USA, where WMF servers are housed.

WMF requires that all content comply with relevant US legal codes (city, county, state, federal) for Fair Use.

WMF further requires as Terms Of Service that content be held to a higher standard.

NeutralHomer seems to be arguing that US law trumps any restrictions which WMF imposes upon projects under its purview. WMF clearly follows all US law, but adds that in order to post content to what is a private website run by a private corporation, all content must follow specific rules that expand upon what is required by generalities in US law.

To argue by analogy: federal employment laws state that discrimination on the basis of gender is not acceptable; men and women must be hired equally if equally qualified for a certain position. A local fire department requires that new employees be able to lift and carry 250lbs. This is not unreasonable, and imposes a simple metric on all applicants. Yes, there will be a bias towards male applicants due to simple biology, but it is well within the law.

Similarly, WMF requires that on top of US law, content must abide by certain rules. These rules don't discriminate; they merely state that within the extant law, there are further requirements for inclusion. Given that these further requirements do not contravene US law in any way, there is no basis for challenging them.

In short: WMF requires certain things. Abiding by those things is something we all agree to every time we contribute. [ roux ] [x] 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Like I have said, that is the way I understand it. I will be the first to admit I don't understand NFCC and F-U that well. I understand it the best it has been explained to me. Explain it to me, give me a short version, without 10 pounds of legaleze and I might understand it more clearly. Yelling at me ain't gonna help. Also Roux, insulting me on IRC (I am there too ya know) doesn't help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:46

Seeing as I didn't, that's a moot point. I offered an opinion here; you are free to take it or leave it as you see fit. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<[roux]> At what bloody point do admins say "OWAIT, blocking not working, BYE BYE YOU"

<[roux]> Taking AGF to extremes is bloody stupid.

-and-

<[roux]> Also sweet jebus, but that many userboxes indicates serious OCD issues.

Seems like an insult to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 07:01

Yes, offhand comments which do nothing to detract from the point I have made here. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if reposting irc logs is allowed or not, but assuming it is... While the comments might not be completely pc, it's not clear he's even referring to you? I feel like I might be missing something here. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 08:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to him, but again, they have nothing to do with the substance of the comments I made in this thread. [ roux ] [x] 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both users are, imho, acting inappropriately. [This looks like edit warring to me, and there really isn't much excuse for that. Both of you need to take a deep breath and maybe step away from the computer for a bit. Remember, it's only a website. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I take full responsibility for my behaviour. I should have walked away, I didn't...my fault. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:47

Twinkle abuse

In the past, NeutralHomer has had his access to Twinkle removed for abusing it. Administrators can see this history at Special:Undelete/User:Neutralhomer/monobook.js and others can see one of the discussions about it here. It's quite obvious that he is abusing it again based on edits like this, this, this, and this. NeutralHomer is already on a short leash based on this unblock of his account (personally, I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also told to stay away from Betacommand in addition to JPG-GR and Calton because these two have had bad interactions in the past). Is it time to "detwinkle" again? He is using Twinkle to revert valid edits in an area where he admits he is absolutely clueless, yet he goes around reverting anyway. Metros (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And add these two to it as well (both of these occurred in the last couple of days). Metros (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget his tagging of me as a vandal and his attempt to bait me into outright making me violate Wikipedia: Civility. He is quick to blame me for being a vandal, yet will not apologize for a remark that he made that I considered to be baiting just as I was about to accept someone's acceptable explanation over another matter, which wasn't called for..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I forgot his abuse at WJLA-TV just a week ago (I was involved in that dispute). See the article's history and NH's edits such as [64], [65], [66], and [67] where he used the tool to revert valid changes per the manual of style and our verifiability and sourcing policies. As I have been involved with disputes with him in the past, I will not enact any blocks or removals in this case, however, I think something clearly needs to be done if there are at least ten examples of Twinkle abuse in the last week by a user who has had it removed twice in the past. Metros (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - tagging perfectly good edits as vandalism is the very definition of Twinkle abuse. I have de-Twinkled. Review invited. Black Kite 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this. Just a couple of notes — You should protect the monobook.js when doing such thing to ensure the user does not re-add the item; and, add the user to MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js to prevent them from simply enabling twinkle in their preferences. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, there's a page I never knew existed! Of course, I'll forget it exists months down the road when I need to use it... Metros (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know about that page either, I must admit - thanks for pointing it out. I didn't protect the monobook - I just watchlisted - because I assumed an experienced user like NH wouldn't be daft enough to simply revert ... perhaps I'm stretching AGF too far. Black Kite 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll keep an eye on it: I effectively became one of NH's probation officers when he was unblocked (althoughRjd0060's protected it). Acroterion _(talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If people are watching it I've got no problem with somebody undoing the protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've put some comments on the talk page I probably shouldn't take action, but there is edit warring going on, a 3RR warning from someone whose edits also may be 3RR, etc. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked one user (Slipgrid) who made four reverts for 24 hours, and warned one (Kaiwhakahaere) who only made three reverts to knock it off. Gentgeen (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does anyone think the page should be protected for a few days? These 2 weren't the other editors involved. Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked, I don't see a need for protection now that Slipgrid has been blocked and Kaiwhakahaere has been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I originally brought this to WP:FTN a few days ago, but it seems someone thought I was targeting them rather than the POV back and forth. I wasn't happy with either version, so made a partial revert when I came back earlier - not realising there had been another faster edit war in the meantime. I don't think the page currently needs protection, but unfortunately looks like it will need watching for a while. Verbal chat 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People on Huggle struggling to keep up - can we have some help? \ / (⁂) 11:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With what, specifically? There are quite a few articles on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's just asking that we go to recent changes and take a look. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things are down to manageable levels (though still moderately high). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well ill join in for a bit. Shouldn't have anything else slipping through for now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in a couple of content disputes with User:Ashley kennedy3, most recently at Banias. Today, after trying to engage in a discussion with him regarding some inaccurate edits by him (see this), he has started reverting my edits without engaging in discussion on the talk page, or explaining his reverts see this, or worse, with rude edit summary such as this). After I asked him on his talk page to explain his edits, he began a series of personal attacks on me on my talk page, culminating with the recent 'you belong in the Osama bin Laden category of extremists' ([68]), and the addition of said category to my talk page. Can someone please get this editor to start behaving in a civil manner? NoCal100 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking and disruptive edits by NoCal100.

NoCal100 has a long history of disputes. This for the first time with me. He has been caught wiki stalking Nishidani in his latest POV pushing episode. previously NoCal100 had no history of editing Banias and as soon as Nishidani was asked to copy edit Banias NoCal100 turns up. I don't particularity like stalkers, well actually I think that they are scum of the earth....So I am quite happy with the fact that NoCal100 has brought his wikistalking to the attention of the administration...NoCal100s edits are minimal and nearly always disruptive...His reverts normally defy logic and reality...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley kennedy3, your first attack on this user [69] was met with a polite warning,[70] and you then raised the stakes with a completely out of bounds comment. [71] I have blocked your account for one week. Whatever NoCal100 might have done wrong is no excuse for your behavior. I did check their contributions and nothing jumped out at me as particularly problematic, except for one block for edit warring that has already expired. I also see that you did not cite even one piece of evidence in your complaint against them immediately above. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted this userpage due to its content. Other admins may wish to look at this, and the edits of this user - I may not have much time to do so this evening. Black Kite 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that user page was seriously fucked up, and you were right to delete it. However, it may be a very good idea if you contact the user on their talk page, and explain why you did it (and I may use more diplomatic phrasing than "seriously fucked up") Please drop them a note, explain why to deleted it, and kindly ask them to return to building the encylopedia. Their edit history (aside from that userpage) looks fine to me. They aren't a very active editor (less than 500 edits since July 2007), but I haven't seen any bad faith editing in the main space or elsewhere... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not bad faith, but repeated insertions and discussions (though not to the point of actively edit warring) on fringe-y poorly sourced racial theories about Barack Obama in early October, after being asked not to do it, which was bizarre coming from a long-term editor.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that, and since the user's edits appear to be on possibly contentious race and sexual articles, suggested the above. Black Kite 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you were right to delete it, vivid imagination or wishful thinking it needed to go.— Ѕandahl ♥ 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh great; now I'm going to spend all day wondering what I'd missed... HalfShadow 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry - unless you're into unpleasant misogynist fantasies, you've missed nothing. Black Kite 21:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But did they involve unpleasant, misogynist fantasies that also involved kittens and peanut butter? I mean, let's be serious here ... -t BMW c- 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight up torture porn, and pretty clearly out per Wikipedia:USER#What may I not have on my user page? May have fallen under Wikipedia:USER#Statements of violence and most certainly "likely to give widespread offense". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kittens at all. Any story which ends "Now she's in my basement" is never good. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty standard BDSM porn, after having given it a read. Don't let's jump to conclusions with 'threats of violence' here. The cutting is a bit much, but at least a third of the stuff in that story is pretty standard fare. Don't be too harsh on him ;-) Actually, that last paragraph is not standard fare. Still, AGF and all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith, just explaining why I agree that the user page was blatantly inappropriate. People's kinks aren't my personal concern so long as not acted upon, and there's a far cry between doing it and writing about it, but a torture porn story can (imho) legitimately be read as among "Statements that encourage, and/or condone, specifically, acts of violence against any person(s) or group(s)", including "the mention, or implication, of specific violent acts — for example, murder or rape". I don't think it's blatant, though, which is why I said "may." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Category removed from both pages.

I've found this here [72] with my talk page on it. I presume it relates to this edit on my talk page [73] which has put real and nonexistent categories on it. These aren't actual categories obviously, but 71.32.223.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is being a bit weird. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the category from the two pages that were in it. Not sure there's much to see here. oren0 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month.

This user 67.234.104.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on the Julianna Rose Mauriello article claiming to be her brother. He has already been banned three times for adding unsourced information to the article and rudeness/incivility. On that article's talk page he has repeatedly made assertions about the factual accuracy of the article. [74] He has also been asked to be civil, on that talk page, and today is still being rude, using bad language, and making unsourced factual assertions. [75] (He has also been told to contact Wikipedia, or have JRM contact Wikipedia, with some proof of who he is, and apparently has not, so it's doubtful that he is indeed JRM's brother.) He is also violating WP:OWN by telling people not to change the article. [76] RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the above ip for a month (as the ip has been previously blocked for a week), noting that they need to contact OTSR or WP:Office - or have Miss Mauriello's representatives do so - in order to prove their identity. I also pointed out that having their identity checked does not allow them to continue violating WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobxavier (talk · contribs) I just asked the above blocked user if he's still editing Wikipedia. I know he's an Indian 'sociologist' with a pretty virulent hatred of Christians, but he sent me this in reply. I think, perhaps, it might help with orchestrating a rangeblock? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Template:Archive box collapsible[reply]

This is happening now, so I expect this status to change, perhaps as I type this. I just blocked the ip: 99.167.225.149 (talk · contribs) and immediately afterwards, another IP address blanked that user's talk page: 76.10.27.248 (talk · contribs). This seems a little much of a coincidence. They seem likely related somehow. Could someone look into this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99.167.x.x is an AT&T address; 76.10.x.x is registered to "Distributed Management Information Systems Inc.". Network-wise, they don't appear to be related. I'll run a port scan. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of open ports on the first address; port 8000 may be open on the second. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours.

User 85.75.249.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account which keeps attacking me personally despite my warnings and advice about Wikipedia policies regarding personal attacks. He calls me a " machine" and a "group of Olympic watchdogs". At the same time he is engaging in a long term edit war on Olympic Airlines. Dr.K. (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours (and explained to at their talkpage). In future issue the necessary warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue edit warring/violating WP:CIVIL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really indebted. Thank you very much for the quick response and the advice. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

user:147.52.67.230

Unfortunately another long term edit warrior IP 147.52.67.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reverted me yet again. Since I am at my 3RR limit I could not revert but I simply modified the edit to at least conform to the actual citation. The WP:AIV and WP:3RR noticeboards cannot help as this is not a clear-cut case because it involves long term edit-warring and it is not clearly vandalism. Here are some related discussions.

• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Recent_edit_warring_and_misleading_use_of_citations
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Third_opinion
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Semiprotection.3F
• Talk:Olympic_Airlines#Request__for_Comment:Can_the_comment_of_a_single_customer.2C_as_reported_by_a_Greek_newspaper.2C_be_included_in_the_article.3F

These IPs seem determined to game the system through coordinated long term edit warring and personal attacks. The contested edit has gone through Third opinion and is currently going through RFC. Almost everyone agrees that it cannot stand because it is trivial. I modified it to reflect the exact citation and it is completely trivial and useless IMO. I don't think it is worthy to go to mediation over this because as I explained in the talk page of the article, and other users agree with me, this is a clear case of WP:POINT, WP:UNDUE, WP:GAME etc. etc. Please assist. Dr.K. (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 67.68.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is modifying BLP's by changing numbers (e.g. weight 185, to 188. Or height 6'5" to 6'8"). I can't find where he is getting this data, but it seems he's pretty bent on just changing numbers without explanation. I was going to leave him a warning template on WP:RS, however I don't want to be bite-y. Should I go ahead and revert and warn? Digital^Ninja 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely vandalism. You could try leaving a friendly note so the IP at least knows someone is watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another death hoax, this time for Lil Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Let's go for full protection for a while, and I think it's time to hand out some of those indef blocks people agreed were necessary for participating in this crap to Jammininthestree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), EveryDayJoe45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Mikaela123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —Kww(talk) 01:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]