Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive66

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Immediate attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. 2 Why is the arb com election not publicised at the top of every page? 3 Bias and Closure 4 User RK 5 Deletion Of "Fretwide" and "Run" genre of music 6 Request review and possible block inre: WP:NLT 7 User:Antispammer 8 Requesting a block for personal attack parole violation 9 MARMOT 9.1 Looks like none of you have a clue whats going on: 10 2 questionable users 11 Copperchair blanking his talk page 12 User:OnwardsCS 13 User:68.109.223.137 Redux 14 A1sdf Sockpuppet (talk • contribs) 15 User:Bumpusmills1 - harassment 16 User: Spirit of Man 17 Who protected this article? 18 User:Aidan Work 19 Block of User:Zordrac and related issues relating to personal attacks by User:Ambi 20 Netoholic 21 User:Snowspinner 21.1 Two comments from the eye of the storm 21.2 An outside view 22 Zordrac = blissy2u = Internodeuser 23 Help! Need advice. Please 24 Displaying another's image on one's user page 25 Tracking IP addresses of users and contacting their employers 26 The Witch 27 User:Jason Gastrich and User:WarriorScribe 28 User:MARMOT - ArbComm 29 Blocking over fair-use image disputes 30 Bonaparte's sockpuppets on interwiki

[edit] Immediate attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

Can another admin please take a look at the actions of myself (Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and Freestylefrappe (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EurekaLott, my talk page, and FSFs. It began with FSF taking umbrage with me pointing out a voting pattern. FSF then accused me of "harassment." After a brief exchange, FSF then voted oppose on Eureka (and another) for my and BD2412's (percieved) actions. After I (twice) changed the header of FSF's message on my talk page, FSF blocked me, and then for some entirely perplexing reason, let me know on the RfA first (which is hideously innapropriate, not just for the RfA, and especially the nominee, but the community at large who have to be subjected two admins' argument). As you can see, I have unblocked myself because the block (IMHO) is unwarrented (I only changed the header, not the content or substance of her diatribe), and FSFs actions are genuine trolling at this point. Nevertheless, this needs some outside help, and fast. I feel FSF is trolling, FSF feels I changed her comments. I have no wish to wheel war on this, so I submit to the will of the admin group at large. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RFA for EurekaLott has sparked a wheel war. Freestylefrappe complained that Jeffrey O. Gustafson (who had originally nominated EurekaLott) was harassing an oppose voter [1]. After a brief exchange, Freestylefrappe decided to block Jeffrey O. Gustafson [2] for changing others' comments (although I cannot find an edit where he does so, other than repairing a format). The block was then applied [3]. Following this, Jeffrey unblocked himself [4]. I just thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. David | Talk 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to unblock yourself, Jeffrey. Having said that, I think the initial block was patently unjustified. Modifying a user's header on your own talk page is not modification of another user's comments -- IIRC this policy exists only to prevent misattribution of one's comments. I don't think anyone could have confused the headers for being something written by the original commenter. I also think it's bad form to block in a dispute where you may be biased -- it should have been requested that another admin block Jeffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself is grounds for deadminship. There is no circumstance under which an admin may clear a personal block (not IP block, which could just be collateral damage) of him or herself. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(lost in edit conflict) The "changes" in question appear to be these:[5] [6], in which Jeffrey changed the headings of items on his talk page. That's far from being a blockable offense—indeed, it's common practice for purposes of organization and categorization. I'm concerned that any admin would block someone for such a slight action. Regarding harrassment, Jeffrey's comment might have been somewhat abrupt but I see no pattern of abuse here. I'm not a bureaucrat, but I know that users who oppose all adminship nominations on principle generally do not carry much weight, especially when they do so without articulating the principle. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, and I do not like the principle of a blocked admin unblocking themselves - even when a block has been applied which is not in accordance with Blocking policy. I would also question Freestylefrappe's decision to cast an oppose vote for the candidate and citing only his dispute with the nominator as the reason. David | Talk 15:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, it is not acceptable to unblock yourself. Whether or not the block was acceptable, Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions were an abuse of his sysop powers. Arbitration cases have been started for less. [[Sam Korn]] 15:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down there Sam. I agree Jeffrey should not have unblocked himself, but you also aren't supposed to block someone you're in a dispute with! I think an RfC is called for, certainly, but I'd view Freestylefrapp's actions with far greater skepticism. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added one incident from the block log, where an Admin inadvertently blocked themselves rather than the vandal, and then swiftly unblocked, to BJAODN. I've seen a second one there as well. So I wouldn't make an absolute rule that no admin may unblock themselves. David | Talk 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, with the exception for where the block was by themselves. [[Sam Korn]] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not about to start one. Nevertheless, wheel warring is super evil, and must not happen. Neither the blocks nor the unblocks should have happened. Both have behaved in a manner unbecoming to admins. [[Sam Korn]] 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord. Everyone needs to take a step back and chill... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice to finally be notified of this discussion, which Gustafson should have done, but obviously did not want me seeing this. Why dont all of you actually look at the original header, which was a gentle warning, and his change. Until then, I see no reason to "explain my version of the events". It's all pretty straight forward. It's also already being discussed on the RFA talkpage. If you harass other users, you face the consequences, just that simple. freestylefrappe 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you could point us in the direct of an actual justification for blocking another administrator when you're involved in the dispute I'd be most grateful. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed the crux of this dispute. [[Sam Korn]] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. One instance of abruptness does not a series of personal attacks make. We can only block if a user refuses to stop making personal attacks, and I don't think anything Jeffrey has done yet constitutes a series of personal attacks. In addition, please see my comment regarding his ostensible "modification of comments". You are gaming the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked Jeremy. Do not block him again unless he actually violates policy. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget it then. Let him harass everyone. That's essentially what you're saying. Anyone who votes oppose is a subversive. freestylefrappe 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Alex, (and good news for Jeremy, too <grin>). I was actually in the process of apologizing for unblocking myself when I got blocked again. I should have used a normal, accepted avenue of recourse rather than taking the course of action I took. I was wrong, period, regardless of how the block came to be. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think in the light of circumstances here, Jeffrey's unblock of himself is a technical abuse of admin privileges which there is no need to take further. David | Talk 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey's apology is good. I hope his interaction with the rest of the community begins to show some more respect. If you want the privilege of being an admin, you should respond with respect even when being shown none yourself. [[Sam Korn]] 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Im a bit concerned by Freestyle's last few edits: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

I'm particularly worried about number 226 and 230. FSF already has an RFC/RFAr filed against him from his past conflicts. I think more has to be done to control FSF anger problem. — Moe ε 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry my children (Or else...) Freestyle has been placed in a reeducation camp! He will blindly vote in support for all future candidates (Or else...). His anger over the subjugation of his fellow subversives shall be morphed into a gentle, but fierce love for the motherland (Or else...)! If anyone has any concerns regarding other troublemakers, report them to the Wikipedia:Cabal noticeboard immediately. Long live the Cabal! Long live the Cabal! The Cabal 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking note of the above edit, I think it best if Freestylefrappe was left alone for a while so long as he does not start becoming disruptive. It does not help users to become productive if they are provoked, and we seem to be over the immediate cause of the problem. David | Talk 16:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe makes a good point (although the way he expresses it is not so great). It is common in RFA's for every Oppose vote to be questioned repeatedly, often by the nominator. If the opposer gives no reason, a reason is demanded. If the opposer gives a reason, it is belittled. Support votes receive far less scrutiny. This practice does not respect the right of those who choose to oppose candidates. When you nominate someone in an RFA, you are asking for the opinions of the community. Nominators and others who challenge each oppose vote appear petty and lose my respect. Nominators, especially, need to chill out and not take it personally when someone has a different opinion about the nominee. In the case of frequent opposers like Masssiveego and Boothy, I believe that the way people react to their votes is far more disruptive than the actual Oppose votes are. This contentious atmosphere discourages people from participating in RFA, and it winds up representing the opinion of the admin-inclusionists instead of the community. Yours in gentle but fierce love for the motherproject, FreplySpang (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you say, Freplay, I think you're losing sight of the particular case we're dealing with here. The user in question, Masssiveego, was pointed out for opposing not just one, but all candidates running for ArbCom and RfAs within a time span of merely hours (with the exception of merely two - strangely enough, one of the users he supported had a total of 117 edits, a flagrant contradiction with his stated high standards), only providing an explanation in two cases. This being said, I think it's natural that at least a request for an ellaboration of the voting conduct is professed by the community. It is in this ugly context that FSF jumped in, and let's just say that his way to express things didn't quite help with the already agitated mood. My question: was it really harassment to question a (seemingly) disruptive conduct? Cheers, - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was deliberately addressing the larger question. I agree Masssiveego's voting behavior is odd. So do the b'crats, and it's not necessary to create a big fuss to bring it to their attention. Community requests for elaboration are fine too, but some of the ways they have been expressed in this situation are not. FreplySpang (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't have anything to contribute here, but I'm just amused by the fact that someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time, not to mention voting for them in the Arbitration elections to and I quote "destroy the committee", then pops up on ANI crying because they had their own run-in with one of the people they usually defend. It's not quite so fun when the boottee is on the other footee, eh? Ambi 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exercise Wikiquette please. Intimating that someone is a baby is hardly becoming. Behave above those we disagree with. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ambi. I can be a bit (very) paranoid, but I think that comment may be directed at me. While I did vote support a particular candidate with the comment "Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed", it is because the arbcom is such a disaster. And "someone who defends trolls and banned users all the time" is a bit weird, as I've never defended a banned user. Um, ever. Not wishing to start anything, just setting the record strait. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the arb com election not publicised at the top of every page?

Last year's election had a notice that appeared automatically at the top of every page (in the same way as Jimbo's personal appeal) telling people about its existance.

How many users are there in wikipedia? Its certainly something in the thousands

200 isn't remotely near a quorate, its a small minority of the community. Specifically, the members of the community that always hang about the arb com pages, or know the people in the election. A clique, cabal, call it what you will, it does not represent the community; most editors do not hang around these pages.

Not telling the masses about an election is a very good way of stitching up the result. It's gerrymandering. It isn't right, and it looks very much like an attempt to rig the election by choosing the electorate.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Announcements are on your watchlist and the Community Portal, and it's been announced frequently in the Signpost. The arbitration committee is a community thing, not an encyclopediac thing, so I disagree that it should be announced on every page like Jimbo's notice is. If you have any other recommended pages (not in article space) where it should be announced please be bold and add an announcement there. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and Closure

When closing an AFD, the closing admin should neutrally consider the outcome, right, not skew it towards their own desire?

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5, Splash declared no consensus. The results were

• Delete 19
• Merge or Delete 5
• Merge 6
• Keep 14

The total voting for delete or merge/delete was 24. This compares to the 14 keep and 6 pure merge votes. As splash pointed out, this makes the delete position the majority. There was 1 abstention. I think this should have been closed as an obvious delete - 24:14 is a clear majority.

Splash also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 4:14 as no consensus. The results were

• Delete 15
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 13

This is slightly less obvious an outcome, but the total voting for delete or merge/delete was 19, compared to 13 to keep, and 1 purely to merge.

Splash also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:19 as a delete. This was owing to the unavoidable obviousness of the result

• Delete 18
• Merge or Delete 4
• Merge 1
• Keep 6

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 22, compared with 6 for keep, and 1 purely to merge. 3 of the delete votes also expressed a desire that the article be allowed to be recreated if it was done more substantively. Splash insisted that these 3 were more important than the other 19, and refused to delete anything other than the article, i.e. explicitely refused to orphan it.

Additionally Ichiro closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 2:21 as no consensus. The results being

• Delete 22
• Merge or Delete 3
• Merge 2
• Keep 15

The total for delete or merge/delete here was 25, compared with 15 for keep, and 2 purely to merge. I think this is an obvious delete, 25:15 is a clear majority.

I think the closing admins' own religious prejudices had a say here, particularly in the case of Splash as Splash's closing comments indicate that Splash clearly didn't want to delete John 20:19, but had no choice as the outcome was stunningly clear. And I also think that these articles should clearly be deleted as per AFD consensus, and orphaned.

Anyone disagree/agree? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should notify Splash as a courtesy of this discussion and invite him to explain why he closed the AFD votes as he did. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note that a delete consensus is usually regarded as a 2/3 majority, not a simple majority. Dragons flight 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but many admins (me included) do not like combining merge and delete. They are not the same thing. The problem with combining them is that if you combine them and say that delete/merge is the majority, then you need to pick between delete and merge. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to note that a merge counts as a keep, not as a delete. --cesarb 19:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to point out that a merge or delete counts as a merge and as a delete, depending on which has the greater number. And that a merge does not count as a keep but as a merge. I.e. as a "get rid of this article, but keep the content and put it inside another article" not a "keep the article". --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure precident is that articles about bible verses are to be kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses), so long as they can provide referenced commentary. No such article should be deleted whatever the "vote". Shouldn't this go to WP:DRV though? --W.marsh 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As to precedent for Bible verses, see Wikipedia:Bible verses and Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, each adminstrator is empowered to use their discretion in understanding what "consensus" is. There may infact be a consensus as to what consesnsus is but ehhh.... Anyway, if you think he has a bias I'd discuss it with him privatly first. This is the sort of thing that RFC can be used for with some sort of chance it doesn't explode into a massive choatic mess, as long as we all handle it with the civility displayed thus far. If you do think there is a clear bias you should chek against Splashes' non bible verse closures.--Tznkai 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing administrators are given wide leeway to judge the validity and sanity of arguments instead of counting numbers. Overwhelming support for a position (Something that these articles don't have one way or another anyway) is only one of many criteria taken into account. Phil Sandifer 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Splash was right, even by a legalistic reading like "delete at 2/3." My understanding, subject to correction, is if a vote isn't 'delete,' it's keep. If he wanted to, he could probably have justified keeping John 20:19 as 18/29 is less than 2/3. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, deletion is almost NEVER a vote to salt the earth and forbid all future creation of an article. I do not think that anybody would seriously argue that there are not very, very important bible verses that detailed articles could be written on. Leviticus 18:22 strikes me as a verse that could easily generate a featured article. It is well outside the jurisdiction of AfD to make long-term claims about which verses are which - they ought merely judge whether or not this particular article on this particular verse is an encyclopedia article or not. Phil Sandifer 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, you'd be wrong. Leviticus 18:22 is repeated somewhere in Leviticus 20 or 21 (I forget the precise location), so the article discussing the content issue would have to deal with both verses, not 18:22 on its own. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The complainant actually has a link in his signature to a page meant for vote stacking to delete bible articles. And calls his opponents fascist, also in his signature. Surely we're not taking his accusations of bias seriously? Radiant_>|< 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • • "Fascist" refers explicitely, and only, to comments about my prior signature - thus "victim of signature fascism". As for vote stacking, please remember that everyone can read my signature, not just deletionists, so it doesn't stack it to one side any more than the other. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At least as seriously as we'd take them on WP:DRV. --cesarb 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been moving house today, hence my tardiness in appearing here (W. marsh was good enough to point this out to me some hours ago). I do not have a great deal to add beyond my closure comments in the AfDs linked above. -Ril- observes a reluctance to delete the one I did: this is because I was aware it was below the quasi-thresholdy-thing of two-thirds that is the lowest numerical level that has any kind of community acceptance at all and yet I still saw the debate as a delete, without prejudice against recreation. -Splash^talk 02:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User RK

RK is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He has violated these restrictions and has had his 12 month period reset see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK

Now he has once again violated his one revert restriction See the following diffs

Section of old reversion he is reverting to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&oldid=31907906

• 1st revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308029
• 2cd revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35308397

Addtionaly he has resorted to personal attacks by saying that I am trying to promote Messianic Judaism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch&diff=prev&oldid=35307759 --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to count this as two reverts because of the time difference involved (about three weeks between the version he is "reverting" to and the first diff) but I will block for the personal attack. It took me a second to realize why it was an attack; Eliezer is an Orthodox Jew, and accusing him of promoting Messianic Judiasm (i.e., a belief in Jesus) is highly offensive. I am not convinced by RK's subsequent post to Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch that he did not intent his comments to be an attack; he should know better, particularly given that he is on probation, and that his probation is a reduction from his original ban. I'm issuing a block, and since the last one was 48 hours, I'm issuing double, or 96 hours/four days. Also, the 12 month PA parole is reset. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Of "Fretwide" and "Run" genre of music

Do Not Delete "Fretwide" or "Run". "Fretwide" is active and has branded it's style of music "Run". www.Wikipedia.org is serving as the online reference for this information to be viewed by the public.

Sincerely, 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) www.Fretwide.com 68.1.33.236 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Run this by me again? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fretwide. Radiant_>|< 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request review and possible block inre: WP:NLT

A relatively new user, User:Oldwindybear, believes that a comment I made on his talk page here (referring to meatpuppets I'd believed he had engaged), could be libelous. Though he has said he has no serious intentions on this score, he continues to reference our past interactions as "libelous." Despite cautions from myself and Dmcdevit about why even not completely serious legal threats are not okay [13], he has continued to post comments mentioning libel on numerous talk pages his talk page, T:Bonnie and Clyde, T:Bonnie and Clyde. I'd hoped that Dmcdevit and my requests for him to just move on and work on content would take hold, but apparently that isn't the case. Today he left this at T:Bonnie and Clyde. Now today Mac1953 (who has said he is Oldwindybear's brother) has left a message at WP:RFC on the issue here, as I had suggested he do (rather than banging on and on about it on article talk pages), again stating that I have "personally libeled" him. It's incorrectly formatted, but that's easily enough fixed. It's not that I mind the RFC, in fact I'll help format it properly; but I am afraid that at this point something more needs to be done than just asking him to stop bandying "libel" around the way he has been. I'd consider taking action myself, but we've been involved in some content disagreements. Thanks. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even more worrying, he has now posted to my talk page [14] here referencing courts and "a libel case." Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Oldwindybear indefinately for legal threats. I have indicated, as with other users who have been blocked for NLT violations in the past, that he may request an unblock if he is willing to cease making legal threats. I invite any admin who observes such an agreement to remove the block without delay. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Essjay, the guy has issues and an NLT block is appropriate, but don't you think that your final message [15] was a bit over top? He obviously feels harrased and that kind of tone seems likely to make it worse, perhaps inspiring him to come back and offend again in new and obnoxious ways. Dragons flight 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragons flight: One step ahead of you; he and I have had a very productive email conversation, we've both apologized for acting before thinking, and I've unblocked. Kate & I will be doing all we can to help him make the best of his time on Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing the issue up though; we all need to be whacked with the cluestick from time to time. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antispammer

From User:Antispammer's contributions I think it is fair to say he deserves at least some kind of pubishment by the Admins. In Talk:Operation Northwoods page he uses the entire page to attack other posters and as you can see he has done the same in other user's talk pages. He has also tried to insert alot of POV statements in the State terrorism article. I ask something be done about this. Thank you.-User:Jersey Devil 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators and elsewhere. Nobody is authorized to use those tools as weapons of "punishment" or other forms of assault. Please do not ask for administrators to abuse their tools. --FOo 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the description (I haven't had time to cheack the contribs) It sounds like a case for RFC.Geni 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrator's regularly block for personal attacks, what's with this "administrators aren't judges" thing? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personaly attacks doesn't happen very often. I think I've done it once when the personal attacks had risen to the level where they were dissrupting wikipedia.Geni 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress... Calm down.. :) -Zero^Talk 13:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am calm, I'm just asking a question o_O honestly, I'm not angry all the time.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is though:

"Neither Wikipedia administrators, nor anyone else here, have the authority to punish anyone. This is a cooperative project, not a hierarchical one; administrators are janitors, not judges. Administrative tools (such as blocking) are for use only to protect the encyclopedia project from specific problems, as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators and elsewhere."

Either the policy needs to be changed to reflect new usage of the policies by current admins, in that people ~are~ blocked for "personal attacks", or administrator's maybe don't understand the policies themselves. o_O --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for personal attacks is permissible under the disruption clause of the current blocking policy; no revision to policy is required. Egregious personal attacks or continued mild harrassment/incivility both serve to create a hostile environment on Wikipedia and drive away or disrupt the work of positive, useful contributors—hence, such behaviour is blockable. Except in the most severe cases, I support warning the editors in question before blocking, but it is sometimes necessary to use blocks to convey the seriousness of their behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a block for personal attack parole violation

I would like to complain about the behaviour of Theathenae (talk · contribs). He is on a personal attack parole which should be enforced by bans [16] and he just made a personal attack. He called my, an anon's (84.20.68.26) and user:Pjetër Bogdani's edits Albanian chauvinism. Look at the edit summary [17]. I think he should be blocked for that. I am not an Albanian chauvinist. Rex 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the nicest thing in the world to say, but I don't really see that it's much of a personal attack. Friday (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be. If you look at the kind of attacks mentioned in the ArbCom case, it's very similar. Izehar 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could easily be. I'm just saying I wouldn't personally block for it, regardless of parole. It sounds to me like he was referring to the content being chauvenism, not talking personally about a particular editor. Friday (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Not a PA. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MARMOT

I have blocked this account for a period of one month as a temporary measure based on the information at User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. I have taken this action as a temporary measure in order to permit time for a consideration of whether the previous ban on MARMOT should be reinstated. I am unsure of whether this should be a matter for Jimbo, the ArbCom, or the Wikipedia Community at large. Given the accusations of exploiting vulnerabilities in the Mediawiki software to spoof the IP of another contributor, thereby getting that user blocked, and the level of planning involved, as brion sets out on the incident report, I am inclined to refer the matter directly to Jimbo. Taking into account the recent problems with "vandalism bot tests" by MARMOT, I am inclined to believe the matter is similar to users like Wik, who were banned by Jimbo directly.

I have discussed the matter with brion (I was in #wikimedia when he was asked to perform the tests, and was present and participated in the conversation of the results) as well as with Kelly Martin, who performed the checkuser. In boiled down terms (for those like myself who do not always follow the technical details involved) the evidence set out by brion, as confirmed by Kelly Martin's checkuser, is very, very strong evidence that the spoofing was performed by MARMOT, and that he has continued to engage in the same conduct for which he was banned during the terms of his "probation."

I am reporting my actions here to begin the process of considering the appropriate remedy; I will also raise the matter with Jimbo directly, and with the Arbitration Committee if he determines that they should make the decision. I encourage those who have comments either way to make them here, as I will point Jimbo and/or the AC to this thread. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the above evidence, I agree that this is probably the best thing to do. I was greatly willing to allow his prior actions to fly, but spoofing Cool_Cat shows that he hasn't changed. Ral315 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I warmly welcome this desicion. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That ... fucker. - David Gerard 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*... well, you win some, and you lose some. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like none of you have a clue whats going on:

Looking at this from an animal - enviroment standpoint, its obvious MARMOT is getting revenge on Cool Cat for several reasons stated in my thesis below:

• Cool Cat is a cat, which are predatory by nature. MARMOT, is of course defined in the rodent category, and this makes the two mortal predator and prey (ie. enemies)

• Seeing the decendents of one of his predatory enemies, MARMOT quickly decided to take action - by continually harassing Cool Cat. That would show him to hunt his species.

It was really quite simple, and none of you noticed it. Its simple, Cats and rodents will aways be enemies no matter what the enviroment or habbitat. -Zero^Talk 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that MARMOT was taken to ArbCom before the initial ban, and the case was rejected[18], because any sysop could have just blocked him. And it was so. So, I don't really see it as any different now. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, because when we issue a simple block, it is subject to a simple unblock. The probation, while a good idea and a worthwhile effort, (and I commend those who tried for having the patience and good heart to AGF) has not worked, and hardbanning will prevent similar problems in the future. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be one of those occasions where it is clear enough for a permanent block by the community - no Jimbo or Arbitration required. This is ridiculously bad behaviour, the evidence is crystal clear (thanks Brion and Kelly), and I see no reason to put up with this for a moment. -- sannse (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, we should find User:BrowardDawg (first dog that came to mind) and send him around to join the fray. Radiant_>|< 22:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 questionable users

1. User:Alphabetagamnma: Check their contributions. They seem to be putting up a lot of images of nude or nearly nude men (especially movie stars) and then tagging them as being copyrighted but free to use. Also check their additions to the Dong article. They seem to be confused at least, a vandal at best.
2. User:OleMaster: Their edit summaries and talk page entries are juvenile and combative to say the least. They have continually changed working links to non-working links but at the same time they'll add some good edits. This makes the next editor have to pick and choose which edits need to be reverted.

So, can someone take a look at these users and maybe step in? They've both been warned about their actions in the past. Dismas|^(talk) 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going through ABG's images, and I already deleted one for being a copyvio/non-commercial image. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) nearly all images they uploaded, except for two, since they were all copyvios or were "copyright with permission," but he was not the host of those websites, so I treated them like copyvios. He was warned about the copyvios, but if he deviates, he will be blocked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copperchair blanking his talk page

Copperchair (talk · contribs) has blanked his talk page tens of times over the past month or so. Wouldn't that constitute a need for protection? --TML1988 15:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What a conisidence... I was just coming over here to discuss this very issue. Copperchair may have stopped the edit-warring and breaching of policy he has shown in the past, but now he has stooped to balnking his talkpage to annoy editors 'round the clock. Several administrators and users have inquired him to discuss this issue and/or simply archive his page, but to no avail (I even offered to do it for him). He is simply not to doing it in good faith, (see his rfar and rfc) and some action must be taken. Coutless users have been more patient than they should have. -Zero^Talk 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no rule against blanking you talk page. I certainly don't like the practice, but it's none of our business what users do in their userspace (within reasonable limitations of course). I know many users who blank their talk pages - should they all be protected? I don't think making it a rule would make practical sense anyway. It would be impossible to enforce. Izehar 15:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So you want his page full protected so he cant blank it? How could anyone else then add anything to his talk page? Mike 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Real simple: They don't. There's nothing to discuss, there's nothing to chat about. Copperchair was just relesed froma month long ban, and looking through his contributions, its saturated with edit wars, vandalism, and actions requiring blocks and rfars. Also take into account the fact he isn;t making any useful contributions as well. -Zero^Talk 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Izehar. Although it's infuriating when people blank their talk pages to hide evidence of wars, unless they blank the history, it's kind of their business. Now, if they are in the process of arbitration or in the process being warning for vandalism, then we will sometimes step in to lock the page. Generally, being a jerk isn't enough, as you can link to the diffs when presenting evidence. Geogre 16:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - he is in the process of arbiration, and furthurmore, there are warnings and constant comments regarding his behavior on the page. Blanking his page is clear violation of these warnings and comments made from adminstrators, and it is considered vandalism to remove them. -Zero^Talk 17:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are annoyed and offended by someone blanking their talk page, your best course of action is probably to be less sensitive. If the talk page blanking is the sole issue, there is no issue. Now if he's also ignoring the warnings and messages and continuing with bad behavior, that's actionable, but that's actionable whether he blanks his talk page or not. Either way, this isn't actually a real issue. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phil on this one. While most people archive their talk pages, it isn't required, and I can think of at least one prominent admin (RickK) who pointedly did not do so. This is a non-issue. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can think of another - Jimbo -- sannse (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with sensitivity. It has to do with removing warnings and comments left by admins regarding his behavior. Its not that hard to archive a page. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not against Wikipedia policy to blank your talk page, but IMHO it should be considered evidence of bad faith the next time the user ends up in any controversy even tangentially related to anything the user blanked. --Aaron 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure - but it's kinda lousy evidence. Or, at least, tangental and not necessary to show the case. And thus consuming the arbcom's time unnecessarily. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have said circumstantial evidence. Not worth much in and of itself, but if it helps prove a pattern... --Aaron 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:OnwardsCS

User:OnwardsCS has just recreated the previously deleted {{Pro-life-stub}}, as well as changing the redirects at Stem Cell Research and Fetal Tissue Experimentation into articles thickly laden with anti-abortion POV. I've reverted the edits and deleted the template. Probably best to keep an eye on this user. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• All three are protected now. Radiant_>|< 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.109.223.137 Redux

68.109.223.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was just blocked a couple of days ago (see above for original incident) is back making major disruptive edits to Fox News Channel, the same page he was 3RRing before. Request an admin take a look. Thanks, --Aaron 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding a comment: There's a chance this might be a sockpuppet of User:Amibidhrohi, who has been blocked twice recently for 3RR violations on the Fox News Channel page and is currently serving a 48-hour block for excessive personal attacks and harassment against User:Celestianpower. How does one go about checking that? --Aaron 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: It might also be a sock of User:Luis Hamburgh who just commented on the talk page after I kept asking the IP to talk and the last IP's edit's summary was Sure, let's talk - but instigator of talk doesn't get to also have article reflect his motive for instigating the talk. You wanna talk? Let's talk. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A1sdf Sockpuppet (talk • contribs)

...was blocked, and it was implied that it was my sockpuppet!? Trust me, If I make a sockpuppet, you'll know about it(like now for instance)--I (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) really should check in on this place more often 21:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bumpusmills1 - harassment

The user Bumpusmills1 has been threatened with severe consequences, as seen on [19]. The user is apparently using Tor, making him untracable, but even so, the diff before my reversion should not be deleted until I have received a response from the abuse email. Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tor outproxies are considered open proxies and should be blocked on sight. The full list is at http://moria.seul.org:9031/; didn't someone have a bot to block them all? --cesarb 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff [20]. Sceptre has also blocked the IP indef, FWIW. --Doc ^ask? 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this be reported to an appropriate law enforment organization? I would think that would be the proepr response to such harrasing and threatening posts -- the info would then be on record in case any person follows through on these threats -- particualrly as I gather that this user has been the victim of off-line harrasment in the past. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What are the appropriate authorities? And who does the reporting? --Doc ^ask? 21:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviouly User:Bumpusmills1 could report this himself, but so IMO could any intersted user, particuarly an admin. FBI might be relevant (assuming that Bumpusmills lives in the US) or the police of the jurisdiction where he lives. Someone reporting this would need his ID info (name address, etc), which i gather has been made public on wikipedia in the past. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note similar has been reported previously --pgk^(talk) 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Spirit of Man

On the talk page for the article Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health, a Scientologist user calling himself User:Spirit of Man (who has been attempting, along with User:Terryeo, to turn many articles into blatant advertisements for Scientology) made a direct personal threat to me conditional upon me reverting my edit to the article, which was to add sources to comments about Xenu. Not only a legal threat was made, but a very distinct threat of personal harassment if I don't edit the article the way he sees fit. He also holds me responsible for the image of the Dianetics book on the page, which I had nothing to do with. This man is frightening and I consider him dangerous, but I do not respond well to personal threats. wikipediatrix 04:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

could you provide a diff?--Alhutch 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be what is being referred to. Rx StrangeLove 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that personal threats against wikipediatrix should be tolerated.--Alhutch 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted to User:Spirit of Man's talk page. It is my opinion that Wikipediatrix deserves an apology over this. We must not allow such threats on Wikipedia.--Alhutch 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that some of his talk page discussions seem reasonable, I'm inclined to see how he responds before doing anything else, but I would support strong measures if this sort of thing continues. Dragons flight 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "knowledge report", anyway? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but I've been looking for one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I quickly found on Google it appears to mean something like officially ratting on the sins of someone else, typically by telling their trangressions to someone higher in the Church. If the one being ratted on is not a Scientologist, I don't know why one should care. Dragons flight 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because according to many sources such as Operation Clambake and Jesse Prince, the Church of Scientology collects files of knowledge about its enemies and critics for the purpose of malicious legal and personal harassment, and even physical attacks. Such a thing is not to be taken lightly. "Spirit of Man" knows I am not a Scientologist, and yet he ominously says "I encourage you to consider what you do next very carefully". wikipediatrix 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And what does "Your auditing folders if any exist on the planet" mean?

Anyway, SoM's comments seem to be in the spirit of WP:NLT, that is, trying to indimidate one's way towards a certain POV. Even if the post is laughable, I still can't see how it can be read as anything other than an intent to intimidate. --Interiot 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Auditing folders are files kept on people who have undergone the Auditing process, and thus it is a threat to access my personal identity information for unspecified but ominous purposes. That I've never done Scientology auditing is beside the point: the threat fits every definition of stalking and cyber-stalking. wikipediatrix 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Example of past harassment and abuse by Scientology cultists: Operation Freakout --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP range on Earthlink (what a surprise!). So banning the username will I predict have 0 effect. Whack-a-mole time! (I am way involved in any Scientology-related articles and will have to dive back into heavy editing of them myself, evidently.) - David Gerard 08:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

wikipediatrix deleted the information that Spirit of Man (talk · contribs) was pressuring her to remove. While I understand why she did it, I nevertheless think it's a bad precedent to give in to threats generally. So I've restored the edits and left a note taking responsibility for them. If Spirit of Man has a problem with that, he can talk to me, and she can wash her hands of this affair.

God, I've got a ton of work now and REALLY don't have time for this, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who protected this article?

Saugeen Stripper appears to be extremely controversial. I got there from Deletion review, and that's not all that happened. It is now under protection (as a redirect), and there is no notice of it in the edit summaries. The last editor credited is Alkivar, who is involved in the dispute. If he has protected without discussion, he is wrong. If the page has been protected by a nameless figure, he is being libelled, which is worse. Septentrionalis 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Alkivar to unprotect it. I'm sure he's made a mistake or isn't clear on the policy. This surely isn't a good way to get a consensus that your ideas for the page are right. James James 05:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Several editors seem to agree with Alkivar (who did protect it). However the AfD was no consensus with slim to no merge request. This is a content/article nature dispute, so protection is not allowed. If consensus was for a redirect/merge, and another admin protected it, then it would be OK. I am therefore unprotecting. As a side note, I do agree with the redirect/merge.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, some agree and some disagree! That's the way of things. You can't pick and choose and say, well I can protect the page because some agree with me. If consensus was for the redirect, he wouldn't need to protect it! James James 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just noting that he was not alone. And I did note that there was no consensus. Either way the article is no longer protected.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aidan Work

I've blocked Aidan Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a period of 24 hours for disruption of Wikipedia through excessive personal attacks on other contributors. See here. From his user page, I see he has been warned against making attacks against users in the past. Just thought I'd note this here in case anyone disagreed.--cj | talk 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've since recieved an email from Aidan making more horrid attacks against this user. --cj | talk 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Zordrac and related issues relating to personal attacks by User:Ambi

I just got blocked indefinitely, apparently because of supporting User:Mistress Selina Kyle. I have suffered extraordinary abuses by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and especially User:Antaeus Feldspar and more recently by User:Ambi, none of whom have been blocked because of it. Just now I got blocked, apparently an indefinite block. There is no evidence here, no post or anything for me to refer to. Just a warning that was absurdly ridiculous, by User:Ambi about editing User:Sean Black's user page, something which he himself requested. What the hell is this all about? And why can Ambi go around abusing people and get away with it? I haven't done anything against anyone here. I quit it because of the 2 people stalking me, and because not a single administrator would do anything about it (although User:El C subsequently apparently talked to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about it, and thanks to him for doing that). Its just absurd, and that still I am being harassed and stalked by this horrendously abusive editor, Antaeus Feldspar, apparently because I dared to suggest that Daniel Brandt was written badly. I was considering coming back here, but such a ban is abhorrent. What was it for? For daring to support users who were abused? Or what? I am confident that the vast majority of my edits have been on articles (I believe in the order of 80%) and that the vast majority of them have been accepted as being very positive. Why am I being treated this badly? What justification is there for this kind of approach? Zordrac

If you quit, as you say, what is the problem? --W.marsh 03:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Block log gives real reason for block. No user mentioned above is actually involved. Jkelly 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can just note that he put this on my userpage, which I think anyone would have reverted.--Sean|Black 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found this: "14:31, 15 January 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "User:Zordrac" with an expiry time of 1 year (Sockpuppet of Internodeuser, who is serving a hard ban by order of the Arbitration Committee)." This year block will over-ride the indef. block that was set earlier. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how the identification was arrived at, Internodeuser used a common Australiann ISP with a IP assignment within a certain range, and was a conspiracy theory editor that made legal threats and viscious personal attacks. These things don't seem to be a hallmark of Zordrac's activities.--nixie 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the connection was not established through CheckUser evidence. I don't know what the evidence is, but I assume (and hope) that we will be made aware soon enough.--Sean|Black 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Kelly Martin tells me that the ArbCom has the evidence for this block. If a current Arbitrator could let us know, that would be helpful (obviously).--Sean|Black 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Beside the point - Kelly's stepping down from arbcom did not affect her checkuser access - she is still cleared to do that. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the particulars of Internodeuser's situation or activities, and (my feelings about arbcom aside) do not doubt the veracity of their evidence, but I know for certain that I had encountered Zordrac before Zordrac was Zordrac. I had AfD'd some chat room articles he'd written anonymously, and further interaction with him led to the creation of his account (unfortunately, I guess, now). My early (and rather frustrating) interactions with him did not give the air of one who knew the system, and his earlier contributions as Zordrac were not in conspiracy theory areas, but in areas regarding his chat room articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as IP information goes, they were using the same ISP in the same city. That on its own wouldn't be nearly enough, but there was also a great deal of very convincing circumstantial evidence quite conclusively tying the two together. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word (or that of any other present or past arbitrators who drop by) on it, as I don't think it's going to be disclosed, so as not to aid the next Internodeuser in better hiding their sockpuppets. I must admit that I was one of those taken in - I'd assumed Zordrac was a good-faith (if misguided and very irritating) user, and was quite surprised when I woke up this morning to find that he'd been found to be Internodeuser. In hindsight, however, and having seen the evidence, it certainly does explain a lot of things. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, please don't take this question as anything other than me trying to understand the system better - these conversations appear to be rather heated, and I'd like to be clear upfront that I don't have a "dog in this fight", just a desire to learn more about how processes operate.

You say above that you have "seen the evidence" in this case. I realize that you may have been on the ArbCom during the Internodeuser days, but it was my understanding that you had left the ArbCom in June of last year. If you, as a non-arbiter and someone who does not have Checkuser priviledges, can see the evidence in this case, why can't others? I realize that privacy policy normally prevents it, but if Zordrac has waived that privacy, specifically allowing his IP information to be posted... and if other non-Checkuser editors such as yourself have seen this evidence, wouldn't it be better for everyone's peace of mind to simply reveal what evidence there is? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, and will look silly when it's explained. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Internode users registered edits were to articles on conspiracy theories about Australian murders, the users was not familiar with Wikipedia policy at all. Before banned though the user particiapted in a heap of random afds, the after being banned made a brief come back as an IP harassing the user that had taken them to arbitration and posting legal threats on Jimbos page. As I said above, I don't see a lot of similarites, and IP evidence would be inconculsive given Internodeusers IP.--nixie 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Both seem to have documented interest in similar topics, such as Martin Bryant, Port Arthur massacre, Backpacker murders and Peter Falconio... that's evident with just a cursory glance. Although such comparisons could never establish more than a purely circumstancial case, of course. He also says "Zordrac has been using wikipedia since 2002" [21]. I too await the grand unveiling of evidence that actually proves anything though. --W.marsh 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit more than that, but I'm afraid you're going to have to trust the people who you elected on this one, as the precise details aren't going to be disclosed, so as not to assist future sockpuppeteers in better hiding their work. Ambi 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if User:Zordrac is a sockpuppet of Internodeuser - which I see no clear reason to believe - does it really matter? If a user gives no indication that he is the same as a banned user, and if he follows our policies, what difference does it make, really? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac does not follow our policies, because we have policies which prohibit telling malicious lies which damage other users' reputations. Zordrac has done this repeatedly, and the evidence collected at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac is just a very small sample. I have no idea who Internodeuser (talk · contribs) is, or if Zordrac is him, but Zordrac deserves a hard ban for just those edits he has racked up under that username, no matter what others he may or may not have used. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm the user who originally took Internodeuser to ArbCom so I guess I know the habits of the former quite well. I've worked alongside Zordrac at the Peter Falconio article without issue, even being pleased with most (if not all) of his edits there. Initially I thought editing patterns between Zordrac and Internodeuser were similar, however I've had no reason to take anything further. I'm not convinced without supporting evidence that Internodeuser and Zordrac are one and the same. It's possible, but I don't like making assumptions without some facts first. The Arbcom has my full trust, but why hide the evidence? The biggest threat he can pose to us is to be a pain in the arse, and that's nothing new around here. We cope, don't we? -- Longhair 08:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is suppressed for very important privacy reasons - the arbcom tells us the result of the evidence, not the evidence. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't need Checkuser to confirm that he used the same ISP. That much is evident from the IP contributions Zordrac attributed to himself. However, I'm not convinced that using the same ISP happens to mean anything. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And that is why Kelly has checkuser access and you don't - she's better at it than you. Phil Sandifer 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the reason I don't is because I have not requested access, nor do I want it anyway. Thanks for your lack of civility anyway. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary of just taking the ArbCom's word for it that Zordrac is a sockpuppet. Does anyone remember the Agriculture and TheChief incident? Clearly Zordrac's contributions have been pointed at times, but not trollish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You can be wary all you want, but our policy is to take the arbcom's word on these things. Phil Sandifer 08:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Phil on this - this isn't a jury trial. But perhaps an assurance that three or four disinterested arbs have seen the evidence and are in unanimous agreeement, would reassure the doubters. --Doc ^ask? 09:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I second that. I would prefer that some neutral parties affirmed they agree with this. Otherwise it might indeed be an wrongful assumption of bad faith, as happened to TheChief earlier. Radiant_>|< 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I well remember the Agriculture and TheChief situation....but looked over the probablitities and my suspicion is that they were one and the same, although I felt very differently at that time. I would also like to have some further assurance that Zordrac is the same person as Internodeuser--MONGO 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I too would like some assurance from the Arbcom, especially since Kelly Martin left the Arbcom four days ago, well in advance of Zordrac's sockpuppetry block which she changed from indefinite to 1 year yesterday. AvB ÷ talk 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was due to my not knowing that The Epopt had already blocked him. Feel free to reblock him indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel you have really gotten out of hand with this. Have we gathered suffucent edvidence to warrent this indifinte block..? I feel some discrestion should be implemented regarding this issue, as there seems to be an assumption of bad faith on this situation. And lest we forget, this is not the first time you have jumped to conclusions so quickly... I think we should think this through more carefully. -Zero^Talk 12:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly left the arbcom - she did not leave being trusted with checkuser access, nor did she get some parole on her check user access whereby she has to scurry off and check it with the arbcom every time she uses it. Phil Sandifer 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This was sufficient assurance for me. AvB ÷ talk 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the block, as I pointed out here, there is no grounds for a block whatsoever given what's been stated here so far:

1. "They share the same ISP." - This has been stated to be a very large Internet Service Provider in Australia. As such this proves nothing other than that both the users are Australian. Are you going to ban other people in Australia based that they use the same ISP? It's a bit ridiculous.
2. "They are in the same city" - This is not true. Just because the WHOIS for the ISP shows the same city does not mean that they are in the same city, this is simply where the ISP's hubs and stuff are, not the actual location of where the person lives.
3. "Information on checkuser can't be released on privacy reasons" - Zordrac has had a message on his talk page, User talk:Zordrac for a while now stating that he gives full permission for all CheckUser evidence to be released
4. "They edited the same article once" - Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Hecould've heard about that massacre anywhere, after all he is another Australian.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading through that forum linked directly above, I'm somewhat more convinced Zordrac = Internodeser than I was when I posted earlier. I'm named (by username) a lot in that thread. Why? I'm nobody special, in fact, I'm nobody at all, especially on the internet where I keep my opinions to myself and choose to get serious work done as I can. The only person interested enough in myself to come up with enough crackpot theories on what I spend my time doing online is or was Internodeuser. The self-obsessed ranting, the false accusations, the overuse of lol's; all I need is the hard evidence and I'm sold it's the same PITA we've banned before. -- Longhair 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood something a bit:

The person in the above forum you're referring to (bliss2yu2) is Internodeuser and I was not implying otherwise, and he has said himself that he is prior to this whole "Zordrac is internodeuser" garbage:

Zordrac however, doesn't post there (although he may be one of the many anonymous readers, I've been told a lot of admins regularly read it too), and the person you're referring to is not Zordrac and doesn't claim to be him either. } --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood. It's late here, excuse my sleepy eyes. Thanks for clearing that up :) I'm choosing not to get overly involved in this issue this time around, and quickly skimmed over the posts. One thing I'm not sure about however is, why the hell does Internodeuser care about Zordrac at all? Whilst I'm here, I might as well add my piece that most, if not all accusations aimed at myself on that forum are just more of the same Internoderuser style bullshit he was banned for in the first place. -- Longhair 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To have another voice here, I've just seen the evidence myself. I don't remember Internodeuser, really, but if he and Zordrac are not the same, I would like to see one very good explanation for the evidence. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Innocent until proven guilty/Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Seriously, is the evidence more than those I quoted above (having been said already here: "they use the same ISP", etc)?

Because if there isn't more than I mentioned above (with the reasons why), there really is no grounds or proof for a "sockpuppet" accusation and so a block at all.

Also, as for the evicence itself, Zordrac has already said that he wants the CheckerUser evidence made public and has given up the right to remain private and so there should be no issues with posting what the actual "proof" is here, which seems far from definitive. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom members have stated that they have convincing evidence that they are not going to disclose so as not to aid further attempts. We assume good faith that they know what they are doing and don't constantly second guess them. We have an encyclopedia to write, so why not contribute to that effort? - Taxman ^Talk 17:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman has it. Anyhow, I'm not entirely convinced, but I would still like to hear a good explanation from Zordrac, and I believe the block was made with a reasonable suspicion. (If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it might be something else, but is anyone too surprised when it gets shot at?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to second Taxman but Mindspillage beat me to it. Arbcom members have stated that they have convincing evidence which is NOT limited to CheckUser. They have said that they will not release the details, not because of Zordrac's privacy, but because the info would help future sockpuppeteers refine their approach. Zordrac's permission is beside the point. FreplySpang (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New information has been brought to my attention that leads me to have some doubt about the original conclusion made (not by me, by the way) that these two users are the same editor. However, Zordrac is, without a doubt, a vexatious user whose main purpose for editing is to disrupt Wikipedia (he has said as much in several places), so a complete unblock is inappropriate. Therefore, I've shortened the block to three days. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you've re-considered Ms. Martin; I was under the impression that this assumptive situation was going too far.. -Zero^Talk 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If I can say something: I fully trust the ArbCom, and Kelly, that this decision was correct. The only reason I even brought up the lack of public evidence was because some people won't trust them. Indeed, I'm fairly certain that Zordrac has a edited from other accounts as well, but I'll keep that to myself. That's all.--Sean|Black 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that while my doubt may not have been unfounded, it turns out that it was inappropriate. We have pretty conclusive proof now that Zordrac is Blissy is Internodeuser. Thanks to all who helped in the investigation. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Publish the evidence, Kelly. It's entirely compelling. Grace Note 02:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see some more evidence further down on this page. Thanks, I'm satisfied. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now convinced also. Thank you David for providing that link. So, this resets the ban for a further year from today? -- Longhair 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netoholic

Following this rv, please proceed as per [Admin_enforcement_requested#Netoholic]. -- User:Docu

[edit] User:Snowspinner

Snowspinner has added the following to his User page:

If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "keep" within your field of expertise, and will undelete any articles within your field that you say are notable.

If he carries this out in any manner which is outside of the bounds of an admin's proper functions, I will speedily undo it and block him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do I understand correctly that if I violate the deletion policy, you'll violate the blocking policy in return? Phil Sandifer 02:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's a weird thing to say. Any true expert will be able to come up with enough solid arguments, citations and sources to prevent deletion of notable material within his subject field. Doing things "because I say so" is unwiki. Radiant_>|< 23:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But Snowspinner considers himself an expert on webcomics, and won't accept other people's telling him that they will not follow his dictats when it comes to webcomics, therefore the above. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're making things up here, Zoe. I've never said that I will undelete things on the basis of my own expertise. That would be bad. Phil Sandifer 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I predict an AC case - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That text is now in {{Expert recovery}}; David Gerard has it on his user page too. At first blush, I'm inclined to say this is a terrible idea. Putting aside the wheel wars this seems destined to cause, if the field expert can't make a good enough argument in an AfD, then the material probably doesn't meet WP:V. Which trumps the say-so of someone Snowspinner or David choose to call an Expert. I'll also note that Snowspinner has in the past chosen to call himself a subject expert on Web Comics; does this rule give him full deletion veto rights there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have listed that template for tfd. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why, being a good boy I use subst: - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, subst all you like, but you might want to take a hint from the community reaction to this. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The community is not and never has been empowered to be on complete crack. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? I don't see a page Wikipedia:Snowspinner gets to decide what opinions the community may hold. ~~ N (t/c) 03:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're an expert in something and an article gets deleted, the answer is to create a new one with sources.--Sean|Black 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is silly, per Radiant or Sean Black. Things are demonstrated to be notable by being referenced in sources, which are readable by anyone. Experts are great at pointing to those sources, but that's very different from them being given the power to make decisions exclusively on their own authority. -- SCZenz 23:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Read the evidence in the webcomics disaster. You do realise that one has led to two and counting forks for no reason other than not wanting to have to deal with fuckwits on Wikipedia, right? - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Regarding "fuckwits on Wikipedia," please see WP:CIV. Regarding "expertise," please see WP:V and WP:NOR. This whole concept is particularly disturbing in that it comes from the same wikipedia user who posts links to how wikipedia's deletion process makes him "really feel" "like killing."[22] It's bad enough that wikipedia has a user that makes death threats against users he disagrees with; it's even more ridiculous for that user to expect to base deletion discussions on his idea of verifying the expertise of other editors. In general I would suspect that users on the receiving end of death threats are probably less likely to reveal personally identifying information such as their CVs to users who make death threats. It's sort of a Catch-22 of "I disagree with you and that makes me feel like killing, but maybe I'd respect your opinions more if you just told me your full name and what school you teach at." -- Dragonfiend 03:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first read this I got the impression that it would require someone with some kind of postgrad degree in the area, such as a Master's or PhD. Maybe Snowspinner could clarify what kind of criteria he would use to judge whether someone is an "expert" in their field? BTW, I think it would have been courteous to notify Snowspinner of this discussion, Zoe. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I have now done so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that I agree with Snowspinner's methods, his point is correct: we don't listen enough to the experts, especially in deletion debates. There are just too many people who vote to delete articles because they have never heard of the subject. Rhobite 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think there is a debate to be had here. We are dreadful at respecting expertise (see anti-elitism). I've given expert testimony on AfD - with reasons cited, and had it ignored by many 'voters' and the closing admin. It is very frustrating. (In that case I was calling for deletion not retention.) However, what qualifies as an expert? Experts can have very strong POV biases. There might, however, be some benefit in contructing a list of wikipedians who can verify their subject expertise, and instruct WP:DRV to take them very seriously. But we can't give someone a blank cheque, just because they have pubished a book in a closely related area. --Doc ^ask? 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but at the same time, we can't have a Snowspinner who keeps saying that he should have the final say as to whether webcomics should be kept, even though he is repeatedly asked for sources to back his statements and can't come up with any. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your personal antipathy appears to be showing. If this is not the case, I'm sure you can discredit his claimed credentials below - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your personal sympathy appears to be showing. Pot, meet kettle. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I will not undelete webcomics on my own expert advice. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what editors would think about the following analogous language:

If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "delete" within your field of expertise, and will delete any articles within your field that you say are not notable.

Paul August ☎ 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's just as bad, if not worse.--Sean|Black 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Just as bad and just as good. Paul August ☎ 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that we will ever see a verified expert call an article a piece of shit and then have it kept anyway. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That is SOOO not true!! Getting an article that is original research deleted here is INSANELY HARD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Neanderthal_theory_of_the_autism_spectrum comes to mind (it was later deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum but I still have the scars from the war...) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember that AFD is supposed to be for topics, not the article text. The AC dropped the ball big time in the webcomics case (which I was recused from). - David Gerard 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, an AfD with delete consensus is no bar to a different article on the same topic. AfD is for deterining the deletion of an article as it stands. It should and does consider the potential as well as the current status, but it doesn't and really can't consider any possible articel on a topic, because it can't consider evidence not available in articles not yet written. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad thing. Overruling consensus on Afd would surely cause friction, but more importantly, he appears to be completely disregarding verifiability. To be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, we need more insistance on verifibility, not less. His antics related to webcomics are bad enough; encouraging more of this sort of thing is beyond ridiculous. Friday (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I may be an expert on everything concerning Mega Man, but I don't flaut a higher authority because of it. Such arrogance is unacceptable. -Zero^Talk 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Do I think that one good, intelligent argument should overrule fifty people who don't have any idea what they're talking about? Yes. But I don't think that simply claiming you are an expert and it should stay/go on your say-so is sufficient. We can't work that way unless we really want to verify everyone's credentials. I think that any genuine expert should have the knowledge and the tools to make that convincing argument, though.

And furthermore: anyone who dismisses a good argument from an anon or new user simply because it comes from a newbie to WP should be LARTed within an inch of his life. But merely taking someone's say-so is not workable: you can't challenge or verify someone's say-so. I'd assume any expert who would argue for the deletion or retention of an article would have some sort of reason to cite for doing so, and it's probably a reason good enough to stake their professional reputation on if they're going to claim expertise. So I don't think it's unreasonable to require it be shared. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Paul August ☎ 00:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - it is worth noting that expert verification is quite a hurdle to clear. But it is a clearable one. Phil Sandifer 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

By instituting a system where so-called "expert" opinions override the consensus of interested parties, there is a risk of the formation of (as much as I hate the use of the term), a Cabal of Experts, who would detirmine the direction of information that is to be included in the Wikipedia. This seems on the surface to be antithetical to the purpose of the concensus building aspects of WP. Do we defer to these experts prima facie? On their word that they are who they say they are? That their credentials are what they claim them to be? Your word is as good as my word (unless you are a vandal or obvious nut-job POV pusher, that disregards any notion of concensus or NPOV). As DocGlasgow points out above, "Experts can have very strong POV biases." I don't see where AfD is so broken that it needs to be cancelled. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hamster Sandwich 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my pedantry, but it's "consensus". For such a key term on Wikipedia, it's surprising how many people get this wrong. As to your points, they are all the main reasons why a policy such as this, although perhaps ideal in theory, is impractical in practice. And I'm feeling like Sir Humphrey. [[Sam Korn]] 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He spelled it right the first time he used it... android79 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• A policy of paying more attention to experts might have sem merit. But experts can and often do have hobbyhorses, cortoversial veiws, and biases within their fields. Simply giving an expert veto over deletion decisions is simply unacceptable. If an expert cannot cite verifable sources for a position, s/he is perhaps not so much of an expert. And what woudl Snowspinner do if two experts disagreed? DES ^(talk) 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If it becomes policy to defer to any self-proclaimed "expert" that shows up with an agenda, I quit. android79 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Read what Phil said - he didn't say "self-proclaimed expert", he said "verifiable expert". So yeah, if someone is able to prove that they have academic publications in Field X, and they are trying to say that, in Field X, subject Y is notable, why wouldn't you defer on an AFD? What's more important for the encyclopaedia - accuracy or democracy? Guettarda 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have known several of the generally acknowledged 'experts' in the field of study relating to J.R.R. Tolkien's stories of Middle-earth for many years now (there are even some people who seem to think I'm an 'expert')... and I can tell you that they often completely disagree about what is/is not 'true', 'obvious', or 'likely'. So no, just because someone is verifiably an 'expert' in a field doesn't mean that they should automatically be considered 'accurate'. Verifiability not truth. If references can be supplied proving their position then it ought to be accepted. Otherwise it should carry no more weight than any other. Experts ought to be able to easily come up with verification... they're 'experts' after all. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And how, exactly, do you propose that they come up with verification that an article adheres to a non-existant definition of notability? In five days time, or else the article is deleted and the earth is salted, such that they have to deal with the wonders that are DRV. This isn't about article content or about their perspective on what is true - it's about whether or not something is, in fact, a major issue in a field. A verifiable expert in any field can be trusted, at an absolute minimum, to know the important contents of that field. Phil Sandifer 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to miss the fundamental question - if you have on one side a documentable expert who has written an article, and on the several AFD-addicts who are using the google test or "I have never heard of this" to declare something "nn, d", what do you do? In a case like that, I would be tempted to agree with Phil. I might not use that route, but I wouldn't oppose someone for doing so. Guettarda 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If the expert can cite sources, that is one thing. An expert's naked say-so is quite another. Even a verifiable expert. If I had a dime for all the time noted experts have strongly and flatly contradicted one another on suich issues, i could find all of wikipedia out of spare change. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have pur the related Cat:Expert undeletion up for WP:CfD. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• One of the main problem with experts (and, indeed, enthusiastic amateurs) is that they write whole series of articles without citing sources. The irony is that articles that cite reliable sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. If the sources indicate that a subject has already been covered in several published books, for example, arguments that it is non-notable are (metaphorically) laughed out of AFD by many editors. Experts who write articles without any cited sources and then gripe when their articles come to AFD really have themselves to blame to a large extent. It's for this reason that I encourage any experts, especially ones new to Wikipedia, to get into the habit of always citing sources right from the start. Experts who repeatedly come up against AFD and who nonetheless persist in not citing sources have not learned. Uncle G 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a fair amount of sympathy with that. I have a PhD and a publication in my field, but I have almost given up editing in it. I was being reverted by ignorant 12 year olds – and I thought ‘who needs this?’ I testified that an article was OR on a subject that simply didn’t exist – but the article was kept because of ‘looks interesting to me’ votes. Who needs this either? However, if experts are not going to edit their own field, then wikipedia is the looser. Folk say, experts can win their case by citing and arguing – but how many of the voters in a contentious Afd are actually willing to read more than half a paragraph of testimony on a complex subject? I think there is an argument for saying ‘assume an expert knows what he is talking about’ – but, of course, that assumption must be able to be contested (not least by other experts).--Doc ^ask? 00:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• There's a difference between deferring to known experts on a case-by-case basis in AfD discussions, and advertising on one's user page that claim of expertise is the ticket to automatic undeletion of anything. android79 00:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• The reason the statement in question is ignorant is that if an expert can't come up with verifiable and reputable references, then she or he isn't very much of an expert. I share Zoe's concerns. While we can all agree that AfD may occasionally reach the "wrong" decision, it has the virtue of being both (a) examinable by the public and (b) undoable, either through deletion review or by a new article being written at a later time. Promoting "editing by wheel war" is exactly what we don't need more of. Nandesuka 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've said it before and I'll say it again, any expert worth his or her salt can save any notable article with solid arguments, citations and sources. The assertions that AFD and in particular DRV don't listen to well-founded arguments are simply false. Radiant_>|< 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see this as essentially a proposed exception to WP:NOR. Perhaps the discussion of the merits of the idea should be discussed on a relevant policy talk page? Friday (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(clarification) By "this" I mean, "the idea that experts can directly use their expertise and have it treated as a reliable source for content purposes". This would open a pandora's box. There's a reason we use reliable sources, not the opinions or expertise of editors. We're not in a position to determine who's an expert. To think otherwise is to rethink the idea of WP:NOR. Friday (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The amount of straw flying around in this discussion is amazing - David Gerard 01:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not generally consider anyone to be an expert on themselves. Phil Sandifer 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For Phil's idea to work, the expert must be capable, honest and without an agenda to push. All too often, they are not. What happened to WP:V and the idea that editors establish themselves through their body of edits? Phil's idea is rather half-baked. He has a point, though, and I'd suggest that the closing admin should be an expert in the subject if the matter is contentious and should also enforce WP:V. Pilatus 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments from the eye of the storm

1. User:Snowspinner/Experts contains the people I am willing to consider an expert on topics on the face of it.
2. Verifiability and cite sources are policies about article content. They work as policies because Wikipedia is not on a deadline, and because we take an eventualist attitude. We can live with an article that's missing something important for a bit, because we're a work in progress. The content will be added and added correctly eventually. Deletion is not like that - there is a five day window to gather a minimum of 33% opposition to something, or else it is deleted, and a complete pain in the ass to undelete. Simply put, if a verifiable subject expert can show me that a mistake was made, there is no reason to drive through a tedious process just so we can say that third base was touched - particularly when so many people are willing to consider a 2/3 consensus on AfD to be a binding commitment to salt the earth so that an article can never be recreated. Why? Because subject experts who want to contribute in their field SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED to submit to an exhaustive process of citing sources to the satisfaction of a bunch of just to be allowed to have an article to edit.

Or, to put number two more clearly, make the deletion system stop being utterly stupid and I'll stop ignoring it. Phil Sandifer 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly I haven't been following AFD and DRV closely the past few months, so could you please point to some deletion-related discussions where, as you claim, "so many people are willing to consider a 2/3 consensus on AfD to be a binding commitment to salt the earth so that an article can never be recreated"? Thanks. As an example of the opposite, look here, where someone points out a valid source and the article is reinstated and improved almost instantly. Have some faith in the community. Radiant_>|< 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil, what if the credible expert testifies that the article should be deleted, despite a consensus to keep. Will you speedy it? --Doc ^ask? 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely, as I will be dead of a heart attack. Phil Sandifer 01:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem to me is lack of thought given towards "established editors" of certain subjects, not so much experts in and of themselves. However, the whole idea is really anti-wiki in a way where everyone is supposed to be able to edit, and in reality you only have one or two people really monitoring an article so the 3RR becomes a problem along with the editors being able to participate in AfDs etc.. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly - this isn't a content issue at all. Phil Sandifer 01:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying a flat 'I will speedy keep on the say-so of the following individuals' seems to be a bit iffy. It's not fair to presume that no other subject matter experts have (or will) participate in the deletion discussion, and I suspect that some of them might find it rather insulting to be told that their expertise is less valuable because they didn't make Phil's list. Further, experts have individual slants and biases–pet theories, pet peeves–and I would hesitate to give free reign to the individual biases of a single individual, expert or otherwise.

If you want to lend extra weight to a personally-selected pool of experts, tell them that you trust their judgement on certain topics, and ask them to notify you of deletion debates in which you might be interested. (If necessary, help them to create a shortcut link to the 'create new section' on your talk page.) Two keep votes–combined with the expert's reasoned testimony and Phil's endorsement of the expert's credentials–are sufficient to push many an AfD into 'no consensus' territory. The presentation of clear reasoning may also persuade others to vote in kind, or at least to consider the point in question.

Make reasoned arguments; use WP:DRV where appropriate; help editors to write articles that are well-sourced and that don't suck. Don't arbitrarily cut short discussions on topics near and dear to your own heart. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A question for Snowspinner: Would you consider User:Beckjord an expert on Bigfoot? He's written books on the subject. No matter that he thinks Bigfoot is a shape-shifter from another dimension. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not. Phil Sandifer 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This will shock some people, but I agree that the deletion system is broken. But the fact that the deletion system is broken is a symptom of the greater fact that the article cleanup system is broken. Far too many new borderline articles are created that... well, maybe they shouldn't be deleted, but they darn well shouldn't be sitting around on Wikipedia for another six months with a cleanup tag until someone HOPEFULLY gets around to fixing it... or until someone just takes the cleanup tag off and the article disappears into the morass of the nearly 1 million articles we have on Wikipedia. If we had a cleanup system that worked, or was properly staffed... heck, if people took 5 percent of the time to do article cleanup as they spent voting keep or delete, a lot of this would go away. I'm as guilty as anyone, and have been making an effort to at least dig into the Cleanup. There's like 14,000 articles piled up with a Cleanup tag! Until Cleanup is fixed, Deletion will continue to be broken.

I understand David and Phil's frustration, I really do, but the problem with such blanket statements of undeletion is on a practical level: It's an invitation to wheel warring on an unprecedented scale. I, too, believe that expert opinions should be given weight, but that weight should be given in a coherent statement. As in, if an expert editor presents a strong argument for keeping an article and the only reasons for deletion from a squillion "votes" are "This sucks," then, because AFD is not a vote, the expert opinion should clearly be upheld by the admin who closes the "Argument for Deletion." However, closing the debate early on a simple "I say so" basis is just not productive. Even clearly crap articles are not generally speedily deleted once put on AfD unless a clear consensus develops to speedily delete. On a larger scale, we need, all of us as a community, to develop a new system for deletion because AFD is clearly not scaling to a Top 20 Web site. FCYTravis 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a question here: Did Snowspinner copy my idea? User:Zordrac/experts. If so, well done! Although I don't recall wording it quite like this. 203.122.230.206 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of sensible comments here. I want to lift out a part of Snowspinner's posting above: Why? Because subject experts who want to contribute in their field SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED to submit to an exhaustive process of citing sources to the satisfaction of a bunch of just to be allowed to have an article to edit. Now, I couldn't disagree stronger with this. An expert, of all editors in a given field, should cite his sources from the beginning, because (1) he knows what the best sources are for that subject —important knowledge that many of our enthusiastic amateurs sorely miss—, and (2) having academic expertise, he knows how to cite sources. As for eventualism, we are only going to reach our goal if we learn our editors to do it right from the beginning. It makes no sense at all to 'relieve' the experts of this task, especially not because they are (or should be) used to citing sources. And, just like it was noted above already, citing sources is usually a pretty secure way of keeping an article, thus removing the need to subvert the consensus-making at AfD. — mark ✎ 09:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An outside view

There seem to be two valid points in conflict here. One is that administrators should not simply go about ignoring rules or process willy-nilly. The other is that our deletion process has serious problems, and that good articles shouldn't be deleted out of ignorance. Add to that a third point - When in doubt, don't delete - which has long been a Wikipedia principle - and I think that the answer is clear. Frankly, I think the community should abolish WP:DRV entirely, as it violates "When in doubt, don't delete", and replace it with an explicit rule that an administrator may reinstate deleted articles at his or her discretion. If someone can't find a single admin to undo a deletion, then it's a safe bet to say that the deletion was proper. Anyone can create an article on any topic, so I don't see why undeleting one should be so much harder. If we don't trust an administrator to do that, then maybe we shouldn't trust him/her with admin powers at all. Does anyone think that WP:DRV is really beneficial to the encyclopedia? I haven't found anyone with a good word to say about it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

<3Phil Sandifer 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes the give more powers to admins solution. It fails because a) It makes adminship a big deal b)it means that admins are being encouraged to make subjective judgements and c)breaks the fairly fundimental priciple that anything an admin can do off his/her own back can be undone by another admins (although some people don't think this applies to speedies they are wrong).Geni 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But here's the corollary to your statement, crotalus horridus: As the number of admins continues to grow rapidly, the probability that someone who hunts long enough can find one admin willing to undelete whatever it is they want undeleted approaches one. Every deletion decision ever made will rapidly devolve into wheel warring, blocks and ArbCom cases for all. Furthermore, if any admin can undelete anything, can any admin delete anything? If not, why not? You trust admins to undelete, why not trust them to delete? FCYTravis 03:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not proposing that administrators should have greater powers to delete articles. I'm arguing they should have greater powers to undelete them. Someone who wanted an article re-deleted would then have to take it back through the deletion process. Therefore, unless someone acted out of process, there would be no wheel warring as a result. This is more in keeping with the spirit of when in doubt, don't delete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is in keeping with the spirit of "when an article you liked was deleted, bureaucratise the process so much that, once someone's favourite article is deleted, it can be quickly restored and then never deleted again without consuming lots of repetitive time". More serisouly, it has almost nothing to do with if in doubt, yadda yadda. It is the reverse "when in doubt, undelete", or in its likely usage, "when in disagreement, undelete". -Splash^talk 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying, then, is that if someone didn't like the fact that an article he created was deleted, he could get a sympathetic admin to endlessly recreate the article based on "when in disagreement, undelete" and that each and every single time it was undeleted, that article would have to go through another AfD process? I would suggest that your proposal borders on the patently absurd. One could *never* delete such articles, then, as they would simply go through an infinite number of AfD votes. FCYTravis 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd encourage those disparaging WP:DRV to take an active and constructive role in discussions there, where sensible and measured outcomes usually result. If there are specic articles that it is believed DRV has, um, "dropped the ball" on, than those examples would be helpful to this discussion. I also note that many of the regular participants at DRV are not in fact admins. With perhaps the exception of the recent rash of OOP userbox deletions, DRV gives more power to non-admins by providing an open forum for discussion... exactly the opposite of the intent of these templates and cats: making sure "slack jaws" can't screw things up. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but this "any admin should be able to undelete anything at any time" is one of the stupidest proposals I've heard in a long time. -R. fiend 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For an alturnative attempt at a solution that doesn't involve giving admins more powers see User:Geni/test.Geni 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zordrac = blissy2u = Internodeuser

[23] - David Gerard 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow - honestly that is really sad on several levels. Eventually you do learn to deal with those things but often it can be a hard process and I tend to think wikipedia or most places online, for that matter, are probably not the best place to do so. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shocking. --bainer (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the bliss...@yahoo.com.au and adri...@octa4.net.au accounts belonged to blissy2u? You cant exactly ipcheck an email address. I'm pretty sure your right, but I want this to be ironclad.  ALKIVAR™ 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can come up with another explanation for there being two users on the same IP, one of whom is posting to a board using the old email addy of the other, fire away. Grace Note 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised...just wanted further clarification. I trust David Gerard on this.--MONGO 02:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, not to impugn Dave's cred in any way, but I trust the evidence of my own eyes. You don't get too many bliss2yus to the pound. Grace Note 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not many who also happen to use the name Zordrac and who are also called Adrian. --bainer (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This kerfuffle blew up over the past couple of days while I took a brief time out from Wikipedia to chat with people on Wikipedia Review (my user account, in which I self-identified as Tony Sidaway, was hermione). What was most interesting about this case was bliss2yu's insistence to the last that, while he was indeed internodeuser, he was not Zordrac [24]. I think some one that board were somewhat skeptical from the first and he was treated with some wariness by a number of posters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that enough proof that the Port Arthur Massacre article is ridiculous? Or not enough for you? I've been saying that story for years. But now, all that you can do is push hatred and abuse me over it. No, Wikipedia is not the place to talk about such things. It's not the place to get death threats by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to abuse innocent victims. It's not the place to lie about what really happened, or to push everything as a conspiracy theory. And I regret writing that thing. And I didn't come on here for 6 months you know, that's a long time. And the irony is that you were "catching" all of these people who were not me, accusing me of coming back in June and July when it wasn't me, yet you couldn't figure out that it was me in November. Why? Because I was nice? I was always nice. And "Internodeuser" isn't a name I use very often. But Zordrac is. If I was trying to hide, I would have used a name that I don't usually use. And why not just confess to it? Its simple. Because I was doing a lot of good here. I was not here to troll or vandalise or anything like that. I never was. Not as "Internodeuser" and not as "Zordrac". I was here to help people out. I never attacked anyone, and I hated when I was forced to respond to attacks. Its just not nice. But what choice do you have? If you fail to respond, then they just abuse you, and then later on go around saying that it was all your fault.

I didn't come here again to troll. I came here to edit Peter Falconio. It was just a joke to start with, but I started to enjoy it.

And I am glad that I came for a while, because it showed me all of the nice people here. Okay, so I saw a lot of bad ones when I first used it, as "Internodeuser", and I saw a few bad ones here again this second time as well. But I saw real people. And a lot of good people. And I think that the "real me" finally shone through.

That was what I wanted all along. All that I ever wanted was for people to be honest about me. Not to lie, not to smear my name, but to be honest.

If you want to, you can keep looking through google about me, I don't mind. You'll see that I have basically done nothing but talk about the Port Arthur Massacre and Robert Edwards since 1995. At least 50% of the time, I get around to that. Its because of what a difference it made to my life. Its what I talk about with my friends.

Perhaps you can say oh no I'm some nutcase, but I'm not. I am a normal human being who had something forced upon them and I had no choice, no control over it at all. I didn't choose to have some nutcase come after me, dressing himself up as Rambo and telling me about his whole plan. That wasn't my idea. And I didn't want to hear his whole story.

I just felt obligated to tell people, to warn them. But it didn't work. So for those of you who are saying that I am responsible for the Port Arthur Massacre, you are right. I could have stopped it. But I was a coward. I didn't push hard enough to stop it. Oh sure, I pushed a bit. Sure, I wrote up web pages and sent out fliers to people not to go there, but I didn't do enough. I should have gone on TV over it.

And I should have simply paid the money to go in there that day. I basically knew that was where it was going to start. Okay, so I didn't know 100%, but it was pretty likely.

But you know, I was worried that he might shoot me. I was worried that he might kill me if I went in. And you know what my biggest worry was? I was worried that I'd go in there and catch him and then be arrested over it. I was scared that people would think that I was just attacking a poor innocent person.

All of these years, it has hurt me. I have nightmares over it. Sometimes my very life is a nightmare because of it. I tell people about it and they hate me for it. They ridicule me. They abuse me. They send me death threats. Because they think that I am forcing them to live through it all.

And the guy is dead now. How amusing. He died in a murder/suicide in 2003. So any fears about him suing for libel are ridiculous. He was never going to anyway. If he did, then of course he'd be in huge trouble over it. Its not libel when its true.

And you can all say oh no I am this horrible person. So you can look through everything that's happened. You can look through what LJ Drama did to me over it. Go and look up on their site under "blissyu2" and see how much they abused me over the Port Arthur Massacre thing, how they threatened to kill me over it.

Go and see how badly behaved people can really be.

I don't want people to feel sorry for me. I didn't come here for that. I came here to write an article about an important, encyclopaedic topic, that is extremely noteworthy.

And hopefully one day someone will write that article in here, and it will stay. 203.122.230.206 05:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help! Need advice. Please

I have already been through more than one month of a failed mediation over Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage and several realted pages pages with Nobs01, which then turned into a weeks-long arbitration in which Nobs01 was banned for a year. I am currently in a content battle with an editor deleting my edits and pledging to defend all of Nobs01 text entries. I have twice filed RFC's on these pages. The current one has produced no comments. In the meantime, all the text I would like comments on gets deleted. What do you seriously suggest? I have been trying to edit these pages for three months. I keep trying different wording and rewriting text. All I get in return is deletions. If I request mediation, I will be told to try "dispute resolution." I have been in dispute resolution on these pages for months. Give me a concrete suggestion that deals with these facts, please. I am desperate.--Cberlet 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So basically we have a user who has shown up following the ban of another user who is vowing to carry on that user's edit war? Phil Sandifer 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it is more complicated than that, but not by much. God knows I am partly to blame for getting so frustrated. But I do try to discuss the matter and actually try to re-edit the material in various ways. But essentially this is a defense by an editor of Nobs01's one-side rendition of history in which my text cited to reputable published scholars is simply deleted because it is dubbed off-topic, or a minority viewpoint, or commie propaganda. I do not dispute that I am citing a a minority viewpoint, but I am arguing that some skeptical material from reputable published sources deserves inclusion. Here are some typical comments from Significance of Venona and Harry Magdoff and espionage (and I forgot to mention List of Americans in the Venona papers):

• I have all the time in the world to ensure you dont destroy all the hard work that Nobs has put into VENONA related articles. But I suppose it must really irk you that "Chip Berlet", respected author, writer and self described "right wing watchdog" is being outwitted and out argued by a 28 year old engineer, who takes break during modeling, to contribute to an encyclopedia. Busy indeed.

• you have attempted to cram Navasky's weak ass defense in every article related to this subject

• And just for the record, don’t you even for a moment doubt Navasky’s motivation sin this debate? I mean, how many individuals fingered over the past decade has “The Nation Magazine” had on its payroll at some time? At least a dozen or so. I swear, its like the left is suffering from some form of collective cognitive dissonance over the issue of Soviet cold war penetration in the US.

So this is basically a POV warrior defending Nobs01's edits. Nobs01 was banned for amazing personal attacks, not the edit war, but my experience during the mediation led me to believe that Nobs01 was not able to get beyond his own highly POV view of reality to allow any critical disagreement or complication of the issues. That's where we are again. Same outcome on the text pages. I dread the thought of going back into mediation over the same pages, but...what else is there?--Cberlet 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean absolutely no insult, but I would be inclined to believe, having also edited these articles that your accusations of others having a POV or that THEY are the only ones who are POV warriors, is a big stretch. I think there is a strong polarization there of politics and there was also evidence of suspicious information removal on associated articles that I commented on in the talk pages here:[25]. I'd be willing to make the articles conform completely with NPOV, but not if the current revert wars in all the related articles won't cease.--MONGO 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not in any way involved in "suspicious information removal." In a number of instances I have actually edited out of these articles text that I support in an effort to find a compromise. I have tried different wordings. I have added text that supports the other side of the dispute in an attempt to find NPOV. The editor who defends Nobs01's text simply reverts what I write. I do not for a moment claim that I do not have a POV on this dispute, but I really think it is unfair for anyone to imply that I am involved in "suspicious information removal," or that I only am reverting. Both of these claims are false. On all of these pages the overwhelming bulk of text reflects one specific POV. Attempts to edit the relatively small skeptical and critical sections get reverted.

Please recall that I spent over one month in a mediation process over these same pages which went in circles and revealed, at least to me, that Nobs01 was probably incapable of constructive collective editing. Despite this, I continued to engage in the mediation, until Nobs01 began an aggressive campaign of personal attacks that resulted in me filing an arbitration that resulted in his being banned for one year. (And there is evidence that Nobs01 briefly reappeared under a different name to edit some of these pages until being booted off).

Nobs01 introduced biased and sometimes factually flawed and exaggerated claims on scores of pages. His posting of claims that hundreds of Americans had been identified as "Soviet spies" by the "U.S. Government" was a fantastic hyberbolic exaggeration. Am I going to be cyberstalked across the project by a POV warrior who has pledged to defend Nob01's text--factual or not--fair or not--if I try to edit it to be accurate and NPOV? Do you want an encyclopedia where the majority view gets to stomp on the minority view; and where exaggerated and false claims get defended based on political POV backed by bullying? Or do you want a real encyclopedia that fairly explores disputes cited to reputable published sources? If I ask for mediation again, are admins going to take this issue seriously? Because after three months, including a month-long mediation, and a month-long arbitration, the text on these pages is still POV and exaggerated and sometimes not accurate--and being defended against edits. --Cberlet 15:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet, I am not accusing you, (although it may have seemed that way), of removing the information in the articles that can be linked through those one day accounts. It just seemed spurious that Nobs had hardly been banned for a month when all these related articles that he worked on all go through an erasure of virtually every edit he did. I can't say who is biased, who is wrong or who is right with the evidence. I can offer you the opportunity to do a number of things. Your best bet is a Request for comment. When I stumbled onto the List of Americans in the Venona papers and saw that almost the entire article had been erased [26], so seeing it as vandalism, I reverted that back and returned the page to the earlier state. The other option is to document your findings and once again, draw up an Rfc and if that fails, arbitration. I recognize that you already went through that and obviously feel very exasperated by this new influx of disagreement. But you are editing articles that do have very polarizing viewpoints, and the cases supporting and or denying that these people are spies can be be expected to also have some bias in them either way. Surely you can see this to be true. I did see that you do not just revert and that you do make an effort to adapt or NPOV certain passages that I am sure you have a strong enough disagreement with that your normal human inclination would be to revert, so I applaud that. You may also want to seek out assistance through the Advocates who will possibly be able to help you if you do go through mediation. I would be glad to assist as well, although I am not a mediator, nor interested in becoming one.--MONGO 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated time and time again, until I am blue in the face, that the material you insist on putting in the article, is simply not relevant and in some cases does not accurately reflect the opinion of the source you have cited. On the Magdoff article, you continue to use a reference who has not specifically spoken about the subject at hand. You justify the inclusion of the material on the basis of it “balancing” the article, but that really does not mean anything, if it is not relevant than it is not appropriate to include [27]. In another article you have used the same source, comments from Schrecker from 1998, to argue a different point, when as I have illustrated, the source no longer agrees with her 1998 statements [28]. As far as the allegations of stalking go, remember how many fingers are pointing back at you.

This page originated as a blacklist that falsely implied that the people on the list were Soviet espionage agents. I have only edited a tiny handful of pages with disclaimer material. I have been busy. There are many other pages I have not edited. I will get right on that important task. Thanks for reminding me [29]

Considering that many of the related pages have been recently vandalized by a pack of sockpuppets, I feel that my fears of the content being erased for sinister and underhanded motivations and the need for someone like myself to monitor these articles for such activities is more than justified. Knit Cap; on John Abt and Donald Hiss; Solid State on Jacob Golos, Zerber 252; Zerber 252 on Victor Perlo, Lud Ullman; Rebren20 on Harold Ware and Frank Coe; and PangRoh 894 on Lee Pressman and Maurice Halperin, and lastly, Poor Elijah on Charles Kramer.

One last thing, before I am painted with the guilt by association brush, let us not forget that Nobs was banned for his “conduct”, not his contributions. DTC 15:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view as an outside observer to several articles he edited regularly, his content was also suspect at times. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhere in the middle is the truth.--MONGO 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Nobs was not banned for content, he was banned for conduct. My dispute with Berlet is one of content. DTC 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A dispute in which TDC does not edit, but merely deletes and reverts in defense of the text produced by Nobs01. Please note that I have repeatedly asked TDC to use my user name. Does TDC agree to mediation on these pages?--Cberlet 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times before, the information you are attempting to put in every article has nothing to do with the specific topic. And yes, I agree to mediation. DTC 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Displaying another's image on one's user page

Perhaps this isn't a big deal, but I find it a bit disturbing. In general, I find it in poor taste to criticize other editors on one's user page, although one may do so if one wishes. However, on his user page, User:Anittas is displaying the photograph of User:Node ue, whom he has a history of conflict and perhaps harrassment (see the RfC's at the bottom of the user page). The photograph is not being in an overtly offensive manner: it is simply featured with the caption "Node ue". And obviously, since the photograph was released under the GDFL, Anittas is not breaking copyright rules by posting it. I know that users have wide latitude over their user space; do others find this sort of thing acceptable? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the question is not whether people find it acceptable, but whether I am allowed to have the photo on Wiki. If it isn't allowed, I want an official statement from people who have the authority to make such statements. --Anittas 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

These tend to be one and the same. If people (the community) finds something unacceptable, then you cannot do it. Guettarda 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure where the community decides these things? Are you holding votes or what? --Anittas 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The procedure is to hold discussions such as this one. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. He's including the picture to upset another user. I find that unacceptable. Since when was it okay to bully other users, just because you find a new and creative way to do it? James James 06:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. --Anittas 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't NEED to, this is not a Democracy, is a Jimbo-cracy. You don't have the same rights here as you have in "the real world". You don't have the same burden of proof. If you don't like it post a message in this guy's userpage. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas RFC 1, Anittas RFC 2: This strongly appears to me to be a continuing pattern of harrassment of Node ue by Anittas. Dragons flight 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is a history of conflict here, I think you need to make a case for why you need to display his pic on your user page. Guettarda 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: I like the photo. I think he is a handsome boy and I like the colours. The light-yellow colours go well with the rest of my page; just see the "Military history" box which is also of yellow colour. Also, I think the photo drags some attention to my userpage, which is what I wanted, because I like attention very much! --Anittas 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's harassment, pure and simple. A form of personal attack. You have an established history of harassing others and are on this page far too much. The pic needs to come down. You're testing the community's patience with your incessant harassment of fellow editors. FeloniousMonk 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion and interpretation and you have the right to hold such opinions. --Anittas 07:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my experience that people who pose "prove it" in the face of allegations almost always know that they've done something wrong. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anittas makes sense. You should stop looking at the picture as a picture of a person, but more like a decorative element. The colours of the picture balance the page pretty well and make it look peaceful. Lapinmies 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they do! They make me more calm and focused. --Anittas 07:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't make the same mistake as Anittas does here and play cute with us. Our patience has limits. Annitas is on this page for harassing others far, far too often. FeloniousMonk 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anittas' name pops up regularly after some harrassing behaviour or other, and this is yet another example of same. The issue is not the copyright status of the image, but Anittas' attitude towards other users. If he refuses to stop harrassing node_ue, or any other user, he should be blocked. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After ignoring my warnings and those of others found here and at his talk page, I've issued a 24 hr block against Anittas for harassing an editor he's in a conflict with, and violating WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL. FeloniousMonk 07:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That Anittas says, "Prove it," proves it to my satisfaction. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't need wikilawyering or harassment. It's not that hard to edit productively and be civil. - Taxman ^Talk 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. There is no "right" to act like a troll on Wikipedia. Doing something rude for no particular reason, and then not fixing it when it's pointed out, is not something we ought to tolerate. -- SCZenz 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking IP addresses of users and contacting their employers

For: Any and all administrators who care to comment

On one of the talk pages, Editor A tracked the IP address of Editor B and sent emails to Editor B's employer to report he was posting from a work p.c. and posted his full name (which he had no disclosed previously...he used a pen name as his signature).

Editor A then posted on the talk page the following:

"On the contrary, the vandalism is being propagated by the "sliver" breeders, mostly "<removed>" aka <removed> and posting from his WORK computer!!! Dave LastName (<removed>) is the manager at <CompanyName>, and his superiors are being informed about his Vandalism! I highly doubt that he is going to consider this very funny after his system is inspected".

Could you please comment on this. Is this a serious violation? What ramifications (re: Editor A's continued participation in Wiki) would you suggest would be appropriate for actions such as these? Thank you. MilesD. 14:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actual details would be useful, but my guess would be that Editor A should be blocked unless there are mitigating circumstance. Guettarda 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How would Editor A know the real name of Editor B? I assume you mean Editor B is an unregistered account, in which case, Editor B would not be operating under a pen name but an IP address. This incident seems rather farfetched. Disclaimer:I am not an admin nor do I pretend to be one. Prodego ^talk 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, editor A should be blocked. While this is not mentioned at WP:NLT, but if users are actively trying to get people fired or put in prison, that is still a serious problem. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is covered by Wikipedia:Harassment (--> Types of harassment --> Posting of personal information --> "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Aecis^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if this happens (it would be hard to actually find such information) Aecis is correct. Disclaimer:I am not an admin nor do I pretend to be one. Prodego ^talk 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found the comment MilesD. was referring to. For privacy reasons, I won't disclose the name of the victim. I will only say that this comment was made by Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog. I have accordingly left the {{Pinfo4}} template on her talk page. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job Aecis. Prodego ^talk 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Witch

Wyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is back as The_Witch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Proposed_remedies. Fred Bauder 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Has she broken the terms of her probation? Couldn't see any on a quick scan. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jason Gastrich and User:WarriorScribe

Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) WarriorScribe (talk · contribs)

They are engaging in several edit wars with Jason being pro-christian and Warrior being anti-jason. These users have a long history in NewsGroups and their conflict has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have intervened for Louisiana Baptist University, but as I am now involved I need neutral admins to manage the other conflicts, perhaps start an RfC, and get this situation under control. Other users and anons (possible sockpuppets) are involved but aren't causing any serious issues. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MARMOT - ArbComm

Can we unblock MARMOT so he can only edit in his arbcom case? That is a better option than banning him indefinitely. --MRMT 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the matter regarding MARMOT should be taken to ArbCom rather than blocking him indefinitely. --MRMT 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo outranks the Arbitration Committee; they have no jurisdiction to hear the matter at this point without special permission from Jimbo. Once Jimbo bans someone, there is no appeal excpet to convince Jimbo to reverse himself. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone honestly believe that MRMT (talk · contribs), created about 1 hour ago, and already knowledgeable about MARMOT, Jimbo, ArbCom, banning and blocks is not a sockpuppet of a now hard-banned user? Shall we block him? -Splash^talk 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking over fair-use image disputes

The community's input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocking_over_fair-use_image_disputes. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte's sockpuppets on interwiki

I have a question. User:Bonaparte and his sockpupets have been banned indefinitely on the English Wikipedia for vote rigging. Does that apply on Wikipedia in other languages also? The same user has an account as mo:User:Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? (meaning "Bonaparte's brother, do you recognize him?).

Must be the same person by the style of writing on his user page and other places, but a checkuser might be in order. Anyway, does banning apply on other Wikipedias also? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Was there an Arb case I missed, or is this just a admin-imposed indef block? Admins certainly have no authority on other wikis, and I don't imagine for a moment that the ArbCom does, either. -Splash^talk 22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion near the top of the page. Bonaparte was apparently using socks to vote on RfAs, and to evade 3RR. The socks were blocked indefinitely, and Bonaparte was blocked indefinitely pending discussion on what would be an appropriate block length. It seems that not many people wanted to see it shortened. --bainer (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, so it's an admin-only block. Then there's no question that it doesn't extend interwiki; most admins here are not admins on other wikis for a start. -Splash^talk 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)