Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive401

75.57.196.81

Resolved

 – 75.57.196.81 is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.

Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?"

I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with

Resolved

.

Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:

"do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy" Arcayne

• Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific

things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards?75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

Sorry to use your time on this. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - Philippe 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way."75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.

Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.

Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.

And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious edits from multiple IPs: spambot testing?

The page Talk:Main Page/wiki/The Des Moines Register has an interesting set of very similar edits by multiple IPs over the course of the last month: given the word-salad content of many of the edits, and some of the keywords in the edits, they look like someone is testing a spambot to see if it will be caught by the anti-vandal bots' heuristics. Some of the IPs are from Tiscali Italia, others from various Russian providers. In each case, the IPs have done nothing but edit this particular page, which is not linked to anywhere, and does not link to anywhere else.

The last few edits look like they may have been made by humans, but they are clearly not normal edits, and visibly part of the same editing campaign: I'd be interested to know what the Russian text in one of them means. -- The Anome (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The only Russian word I know is отлично, but I can read a bit of Cyrillic—it appears to be about prostitutes in Moscow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Googling for the unusual word "sincerelykathy" found in one piece of word salad finds a number of similar examples of apparently bot-generated text in user profiles in various sites.

Talk:Main Page/wiki/The Register-Guard appears to be another part of the same thing: note the attempt to use BBText-style markup instead of Wikitext. The subject line -- "XRUMER is the BEST!" -- is a dead giveaway. The HTML link embedded there also suggests that Image:XRumer_screenshot.gif may have something to do with this, innocently or otherwise. See Talk:XRumer for more about the misuse of this image. -- The Anome (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of the suspect pages have now been deleted and blocked from recreation. -- The Anome (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked editor Rastishka (talk · contribs) is again circumventing his block with IPs.

Rastishka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing with one of his confirmed IP socks again, almost immediately after its most recent block expired. He is once again getting involved with Jewish-related topics [1]. IP should be blocked again to prevent this person from making abusive edits, which he always ends up making. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible stalking of blocked user

Resolved

User blocked for harassment for one month. Orderinchaos 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A blocked user, Robert Young, has complained to me off wiki that User talk:Mentality#A new case for you is a case of continued stalking and harassment of him by User:NealIRC. User:Mentality replied to the second point with "I don't know what you're expecting me to do...?", so he does not seem to be involved. The material is now two weeks old. It certainly looks unacceptable to me. Robert says "This is a gross misuse of Wikipedia, and the above comments should be deleted. Not only have I never met this person, I don't want to be associated with him either, yet he continues the myth that I am his 'friend'. I am not bipolar, and my sexual orientation and religious beliefs are none of his business. I would ask that you block Neal to send a message that he needs to stop this." I would welcome advice about what action to take. Remove the material and/or block NealIRC? --Bduke (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's creepy. I removed the comments. I'm not sure why Mentality didn't have the sense to do it himself two weeks ago. Grsz11 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Young has also e-mailed me about this yesterday (I picked up the e-mail today). I had previously noticed the comments (Neal himself pointed them out to me) and I then mentioned them to someone else (I will remove that comment now, as that diff shouldn't be advertised). I should have removed the comments from Mentality's talk page at that point, and I apologise for not doing so. Someone uninvolved should talk to Neal about what is acceptable and what isn't, as a brief look through his contributions and edit summaries shows other problems. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Removal of the material and someone having a word with Neal seems the right approach. I think I have had too many arguments with him over several issues to be the person to have the word though. --Bduke (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a brief comment. I'm thoroughly creeped out by this incident. Grsz11 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I have also left a talk page note. If he keeps that sort of stuff up I wouldn't think he's the sort of user we would want to have around. Orderinchaos 05:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked NealIRC for harassment. —Moondyne click! 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing his powers in content dispute

• Relevant policy violation: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes policy. I think others need to know about this abuse and warn the admin to stop abusing his tools to gain an unfair advantage in this content dispute.

• Synopsis of facts:

I opposed an admins massive changes after he locked the article to make changes he wanted, himself. I did not violate any policy, but he blocked me when I pointed out his abuse and reverted the massive changes against consensus. He blocked me on a very spurious reason, singling me out when others have reverted too. This is unfair and abusive. Admins should not be abusing their admin powers to gain a content advantage in an article. As a party to the content dispute, (and he is edit warring, too) he should not be using his admin powers to block those who oppose him, esp. when I have not even violated 3RR--yet he blocked me. If he was wrong, someone needs to rebuke his conduct for the sake of the probject.

• Details with diffs to prove what I said above is accurate:

Admin William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) puts a full protection on page. See:[2][3]

Then, after he protects the page, he starts making his changes to it, by blanking sections. There is no chance given for participation on talk page about what he wanted to do before he did it. No discussion. Its just his unilateral use of admin powers. See:[4]

He continues to make massive changes he wants after he protected the page. See:[5] And, again, he continues, making his mass deletions after he protected the page:[6]

He then unprotects the page and editors restore most of what he has removed without consensus. Then, another admin Rlevse (talk · contribs), comes in and protects the page again for a short period:[7]

But as soon as it gets unprotected,William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) comes in again and does a super mass deletion of this article. See this:[8]

I then complain about this on the talk page, and explain my reason for reverting him. See:[9]

Then he uses his admin powers to block me. Right after blocking me, he reverts back to his version, having rendered his opponent silent. See:[10]

Its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. I read policy pages and this is not allowed. Since he became involved in content dispute, he should have abstained from using any admin powers on the article to gain an advantage, seeking a non-involved admin. Blocking the editor that he is in a content dispute with is a clear cut case of admin abuse. Just like when he protected the article and then started editing it to his own views--against consensus, and without even bothering to allow for a chance to discuss the massive changes. Also admins should not be edit warring, either, esp. not when they are using their tools to protect and block other editors there.

Also, despite other editors reverting, he singled me out for a block, after I challenged his abuse of admin powers, and calling for discussion to occur before the massive deletions. Other editors agreed with me and have protested his actions.

Thank you in advance for taking this seriously. I hope he stops and follows policy just like the rest of us do.Supergreenred (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a rather extreme way of dealing with a problem, but what he did was absolutely the right result for the encyclopaedia, removing a series of edits which served to advance a POV. It's also stale. The protection summary was "the usual", which absolutely sums it up. People need to stop edit warring at that article. For values of "people" that explicitly includes you. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my own opinion that [11] has been extremely abuseful of his administrative powers. He repeatedly erases huge amounts of stuff in many articles even when it is well sourced, and then he threatens to suspend or ban uers who try to put them back in. He has a long history of doing this huge amounts of times, in many different articles. He is trying to censor points of view that disagree with his own. He is against letting articles be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion related to content and not administrators action TheRedPenOfDoom

• Why do we even have that article anyway? Like the Allegations of X arpetheid articles, it's a hive of POV violations and never will be the contrary. ~Frankly, I'll be surprised if it was kept for anything other than wikilawyering. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  Because its a well-defined subject extensively studied in academia. Sorry. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it's been AfD'd many times and last was a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of AFDs mean nothing. Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was effectively deleted on the 14th. (and the last speedy keep had nothing to do with AFD number). Sceptre ^(talk) 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep (come to think of it)... hmmm... Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is hard to avoid characterising this complaint as an unjustified rant. I agree with JzG, the conduct of the admin looks strong but about right and those who were engaged in the edit war have to expect admins to intervene without being so argumentative even to the admin. --BozMo talk 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and once admins become involved it's likely one side is going to complain. I think William made a good choice in trying to make some bold changes. It was ridiculous to then expect him to go find another admin to deal with someone edit-warring.

I have also reported Supergreenred for a 3RR vio. 4 reverts within 26 hours is not abiding by the spirit of the rules, especially given he'd just been let off the block early. John Smith's (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that WMC was probably removing nonsense - I haven't checked, but its a safe assumption - why on earth was he editing through full protection? Was there a BLP problem or a consensus on the talkpage? I don't see any other reason why that would be acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not assume. Cause you know what happens then.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT (and I wasn't around) it was done in direct response to requests for an admin to intervene and do this on the talk page [12]. He even did what was asked and handed it back. [13]--BozMo talk 12:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Asked by one person. I approve of the Liancourts Rocks solution, but its absurd to claim that unilateral editing through protection is a reasonable response in each case. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? There are pages and pages of talk and I don't really have the appetite to go through it. However pruning to basics for a restart seems reasonable to me especially as there wasn't any obvious POV issue in the prune. --BozMo talk 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Repost of my statement on the talk page: I too feel the need to express concern that the admin who locked the article proceeded to make unilateral edits without prior discussion. Such actions would appear to be contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of Concensus. In Addition, I will point out that none of the Administrator's edits were due to violations of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:BLP which would require immediate action. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have to add that [14] this sentiment and view toward the article bring even more concern to the admin's previous actions which I initially assumed were simply a minor lapse of judgment. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that comment on the talk page might have earnt you becoming one of five chosen people whom Supergreenred canvassed about this unhappiness? Are the others wanting to comment too? --BozMo talk 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I cannot know the reason Supergreenred made the posts s/he did, nor can I know what actions any of the other users will take based on those posts. But, perhaps WP:AGF would be applicable? 144.15.255.227 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I said it would be interesting to see their comments. Otherwise we might as well close this. --BozMo talk 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub issue of edit-warring on article resolved, per block. TheRedPenOfDoom

Edit-warring by Supergreenred

I filed a 3RR report as I mentioned above. The reviewing admin deemed there had been no violation because there "has" to be at least four reversions within 24 hours. However, as I explained, there are many cases where people are blocked for reverting four times within 24+x hours. SGR is not a new user as he admits, so I think he should have known better.

The reviewing admin said he was happy for other admins to review the matter, so I would appreciate another admin/some other admins to take a look. I think reverting 4 times in 26 hours is not good, especially given he just got off a block and then came filed this report. If he was advised to resolve the dispute through means other than edit-warring by the admin that unblocked him, why should he be allowed to carry on reverting?

The report can be found here. John Smith's (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The question here IMO is whether one of the reasons applies for editing protected pages, as specified at WP:Protection policy, which says in part, "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." It would not be "ridiculous", as John Smith says, to get another admin to do the blocking; it would be the right thing to do IMO if the exceptions noted in this policy don't apply, and might be a good idea (though not required) if it's not very clear to everyone whether they apply. I think an admin should be even more careful about editing after blocking an individual than about editing after protecting a page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There were two different reports at WP:AN/3RR by different submitters. The second report led to a 48-hour block of Supergreenred by Jehochman. JEH noted that S. had made 4 reverts in 24 hours and 9 minutes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been rendered academic-- Supergreenred has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet per [[15]]. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Moreschi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Enough. The civility issues are not going to require admin action. I suggest filing a RFC if you're actually concerned about getting some input into this. Take the content dispute to the content pages. --Haemo (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I ran across User:Moreschi with this diff, where he blatantly violates Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility. "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")."

I saw that many more of his edits were in violation of WP:CIVIL such as here, here,

I attempted to bring his attention to the policy on his talk page, but his response was to pretend that he does not have to abide by this policy, made clear in the edit summary and gives the actual posted response the feel of a threat. More startlingly, it appears that he is making administrative actions [16] [17] without showing that on the user page or being in such a category. If this is an administrator acting like this, much more civility should be used by an admin at all times. If an admin can discuss this with him, it would be much appreciated. KV(Talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While there certainly has been a poor demonstration of civility here, I will point out that admins do not need to mark ourselves in special ways. It really does reflect poorly on Wikipedia's public image when admins don't act in a civil fashion. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since your comment seems to have been dismissed as resulting from some sort of involvement, I have made an comment as an uninvolved person on the users talk page. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly. It's not worse that he does not display adminship, but that it's an admin being uncivil. KV(Talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you btw. KV(Talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think Moreschi's edits were right though. I've tagged that article, it needs a serious overhaul. Black Kite 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the edits were correct. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:FTN#New project on hermetism. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's being correct doesn't mean he ought to get away with being incivil. Neıl ☎ 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more convenient for us all if he didn't say what we were thinking. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be more convenient for us all if he said it courteously. It isn't difficult. Neıl ☎ 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course being correct does not allow this user to be uncivil. The user has been told just that, and unless there are further problems I think this is resolved. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree the discussion is resolved. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The resolved tag on this says "try to be correct and politically correct, in future, please", but "civility" is not the same as "political correctness". Is there a reason why "civil" couldn't have been used? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because some of us don't find Moreschi's edit summary uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But if that's the case, it's not resolved. If it's marked "resolved" then it has reached a resolution, in which case a carping comment is not called for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I did correct it two edits after you complained, you know. Its resolved to the degree that Moreschi was reminded not to do it again. Please see the relevant edit comment as I changed it. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Issue

It appear my worries that the dismissal was a threat (Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats) was not misplaced. Soon afterwards, there was a complete onslaught of what I was working on by those working at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Though unlikely to be intentional to be worked this way, the board is working as an informal platform for meat puppetry. Those who frequent the page decided that Hermetic thought in general is a fringe theory and so only the very minimal should be included in Wikipedia and coverage of the subject should be scaled back rather than expanded. Like minds gather there intending to scale back coverage of subjects they consider fringe, even in articles exclusively about them. I want to stress that I am not accusing any user here of concerted meat puppetry, just pointing out that the subsequent actions were effectively the same as meatpuppetry. Concern was displayed over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_project_on_hermetism that a project, of which I am the founder and unfortunately still sole member, would be a threat because it is trying to expand the material. As a result, we have multiple users engaging in what can be called Wikistalking. It started with very reasonable edits, such as this, this, and I can certainly see even this NPOV tagging as productive as the article did and still does need a lot of work.

Not that I disagree with him, but we have the same Civility problem popping up here from User:Moreschi, and though I am looking for time to rewrite the section so it does not rely upon the questionable claims of Manly P Hall, which was discussed in the prior deletion discussion, this and this show the same malicious tone. Then he decides to delete uncontroversial material, that has already been gone through by many critics and discussed, claiming the source to be unreliable here. He does not explain how the source is unreliable, and I questioned him on it in Talk:Hermetism#NPOV_tag only to get a statement that completely ignores a large section of Hermetic belief today, which stems from those who read that exact text, which is why it was considered a reliable source for that subject in particular the last time. He also suggests that certain people (which I certainly took to imply me) don't belong on Wikipedia at all. There's many more similar edits by him following that, which one patroller identified as vandalism because of the tone and rapid deletion without discussion.

We also have actions by User:Dbachmann (signs "dab") which were to propose merge and then decide that it is immediately necessary because of an outdated deletion discussion, and does it himself. Of course, the old deletion discussion is noneffective here seeing as it was at the urging of a friend and two sock masters User:Hanuman Das and User:999 who were both banned for sockpuppetry. The third, my friend, User:SynergeticMaggot is the one who recreated the page and dragged it on, telling me to just fix it up, once I found the necessary sources to show that Hermetism was not a term made up by Manly P Hall and peer-reviewed academic sources printed by a University Press at that. Unfortunately, he cannot explain this further currently as he lost his working computer a few days ago, and perhaps the only time we'd be on the same side of a debate on these issues he's muted by fate. However, I will say that when I discussed it with him he did say that the prior AfD was of no consequence at this point. Of course, this is not the only brash action by this user, who decided to edit Hermeticism as well, reverting the page back from before I added a template and rewrote the intro using that university source to cite the difference between the two theories, and reverted to an edit that was in violation of the MOS by a new user who simply didn't know better, and reverted the long established CE/BCE to AD/BC here. He also decided to go and without discussion change the template to include only the offshoot Hermeticism here.

Now, there were many more rapid deletions by Moreschi of course on that article as well. The only other user from there to be involved, User:John Carter, has been relatively a breath of fresh air. Though he is proposing a merger I strongly oppose, he has been very civil and seems willing to have an actual discussion in the interest of improvement as so far as of yet. I applaud him for that.

The totality of what I call wikibullying though, more or less, though it felt like a lot more, comes from User:Moreschi and User:Dbachmann. It's rapid, forceful changes without discussion, at least not on Wikipedia, that strongly appear to me to be the result of me bringing up civility issues here. It is definitive of Wikistalking. I am trying to remain calm here, however the last time I took an extensive wikibreak and thought I would never return to Wikipedia was from actions just like this from two sockmasters and a friend I never agree with. KV(Talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the "rapid forceful changes without discussion" are entirely yours. We are just reverting them because your material as you present it has no place on Wikipedia. Please try to understand what this project is trying to do in the first place. What you want to do is write essays on your personal views on Hermetism. That's great, but not something you should do on Wikipedia (WP:SYN, WP:DUE). dab (𒁳) 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with how you're feeling. Dbachmann and Moreschi can be extremely uncivil, perhaps having no notion of the personal effect it has. Your phrase wikibullying is most appropriate. They get away with it, by and large, because the perception is that they are right enough on content issues, therefore taken as a whole it is a net gain for the encyclopedia. Your calling them sockmasters and wikistalkers does not help, and is itself uncivil, and you would do well to strike those remarks. I note your appreciation of John Carter's manner, and hope that Moreschi that and Dbachmann note it too. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

is this all Wikipedia administration cares about these days, tone and civility? How about some appreciation for defending encyclopedicity? Wikipedia isn't myspace, remember? This is a non-issue. KV is perfectly welcome to present his evidence and engage in meaningful debate. Instead, he goes forum-shopping as soon as his {{essay-like}} contributions are touched. Anyone interested in discussing encyclopedic coverage of Hermeticism is welcome at Talk:Hermeticism. AN/I is not the venue for that. --dab (𒁳) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I must disagree on the "civility" issues. Compared to what I have to put up with, I deserve a medal for civility. I must maintain that it is civil to tell somebody "please clean up your nonsense and stop trolling" if the person in question has, in fact, been posting nonsense and trolling talk, it is simple WP:SPADE, with a please thrown in for WP:BATTLEGROUND. An incivil comment would be "stop posting your idiotic drivel you loser": something like that would be justly chastised as violating WP:CIVIL. I do make a point of being curt but civil even in the most hopeless cases. But civility should never stand in the way of calling actual content for what it is: "civility" means, discuss content, not the editor, and treat the editor with detached correctness even if they behave like a four-year-old. --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermetism had certain things wrong with it, which were already acknowledged and intent to fix that up with academic sources has been stated already; and the deletion of things such as what bands mention "as above, so below" added by various random IPs is something I just didn't want to bother with. However, the articles were quite encyclopedic for the most part. Various long-standing sources were simply removed without discussion, at least not discussion on Wikipedia. We have a couple editors who can quite justly said to be of the same group coming in at once to start trying to create havoc as the result of a threat. You have removed peer-reviewed academic sources from a university press without discussion, removing a helpful template without discussion, and changed the CE/BCE scale to AD/BC without explanation or discussion. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:MOS#Longer_periods, and not once, but twice so far. Drastic changes like this should be discussed first. I did state that I didn't care what you did to the history section of Hermetism, because I knew that that was unencyclopedic as it stood and needed a complete rewrite as soon as I had the opportunity to sit down and do so. Of course, instead of spending time doing so, I find myself in conflict with you and Moreschi. You have had to deal with someone who has added 70 plus academic sources into Hermetic-related articles over the past couple weeks and has deleted large sections of the unencyclopedic parts during that period and rewrote entire sections. Someone who is looking to improve the articles and improve verifiability, and who was in the act of doing just that. Discussion before undoing large parts of cited work from what Wikipedia considers the best possible sources would be expected. The same goes for rewording them to mean something completely different, that the source is not saying there, because you wish to put your own view onto the page without providing any source and without allowing the cited view onto the page. That's what you have to deal with; why should you get a medal for that. How was I posting nonsense and trolling talk? Can you show us diffs, as I have shown for what you have done? KV(Talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I could only be called wikipedia administration in the widest possible sense of the phrase, being an IP. And even I, in my way, indicated that you had the general support of the community. But take it as an opportunity to display your condescension, by all means. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to quote myself:

Of course, the old deletion discussion is noneffective here seeing as it was at the urging of a friend and two sock masters User:Hanuman Das and User:999 who were both banned for sockpuppetry.

Unless Dbachmann is claiming to have run one of these two accounts, I did not call him a sockmaster. And I suppose I would be wrong to call them sock masters as well; it seems they were both sock puppets of User:Ekajati. I did not call Dbachmann a sock master unless he claims relation to these accounts. That was commentary on the deletion review that had been satisfied. KV(Talk) 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

My patience is rapidly running out. KV is now revert-warring to try to retain some of the crummiest, fringiest material I've seen on Wikipedia in months (not to mention here, some of the most POV). He clearly has no idea about WP:SYNTH, nor a number of other equally important policies such as WP:RS. In the meantime he's trying to derail the process of cleaning out the rubbish from these articles with pointless, wikilawyerish ANI threads querulously complaining about perceived incivility from myself and Dbachmann, who are devoting hours of our precious time sorting out a mess he has created when we both have much better things to do. He keeps on going like this and he's on the fast track for a block for disruption - or, at least, he should be. This nonsense about sockmasters and wikibullies is also far more uncivil than any wording Dbachmann and I have used. Thank you. Moreschi2 (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your patience is running out? When have you shown any patience at all? You've just went through arbitrarily deleting, claiming that you can violate WP:MOS without a good reason for change, and you've deleted much cited text without discussion, and that includes citations from scholarly sources. Where am I violating WP:SYNTH? I have not sythesized anything except where the two subjects do come to the same conclusion, and there I even show criticism of those conclusions. How is the article POV at all? I have been very conservative in my reverts. Which include you deleting the template for discussion of a merger proposed by User:John Carter, well cited text, and violating MOS. Am I disrupting Wikipedia by trying to keep policy the same? The articles were being steadily improved before you came deleting everything, and that included me deleting parts of it myself so I could replace it with more suitable text. Yet, you threaten to use your administrative power to win a disagreement. And if you believe that it is nonsense that User:Hanuman Das and User:999 were sockmasters, how about you explain why they are banned for being sockpuppets? KV(Talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that DBachmann is as rude on wiki as people often claim- he just knows when stuff is not suitable for wiki and deals with it via merges, removal etc. Merkin's mum 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The "civility" issues being seen here are an understandable frustration over a long-running issue. King Vegita has been stumping on this issue for quite some time. If recent responses are less-than-complete, that's indicative of nothing more than refusing to repeat oneself to someone who has had the principles and issues involved explained to them many times. The long ongoing nature of the problem shows that the discontentment with KV's advocacy on this issue is not limited to a small swath of "informal meatpuppetry". It is seriously disruptive to have such a long-ongoing issue generated by a single user and it's well past time for KV to work within the content rules that he surely groks by now (or never will). Vassyana (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block check

I just blocked 71.107.160.155 (talk · contribs) for personal attacks and trolling User:Gavin.collins and myself, including filing a baseless 3RR report and a baseless AIV report. As I am involved with this user, I want some input on this block. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected his talk page. I would have endorsed a longer block for all of the crap that ensued personally. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I had half a mind to do so - I believe this is a Grawp IP - but decided against it because as it was I was pushing WP:BLOCK. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Need Eyes

Have fun! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good god, what have you done. seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

?? (is honestly confused) I brought it up here because I see two revisions that need deletion; I see an attack in the making. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filling us in... I page protected it for the time being. I don't think the content merits oversight because its not revealing personal information, libelous in any way, or an infringement upon copyright. But if you feel that it does merit it, feel free to submit a request. seicer | talk | contribs 05:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I said deletion, not oversight. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 05:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Users Agenda Pushing & recreating articleBrandon Lang/Brandon lang

User:JPMcGavin has recreated the previously deleted article at 14:42 on 14th April above using nearly the exact same wording that was deleted recently. I've tagged the article but, am not sure I used the right tags for this category. Could someone look into that and into the reason the user recreated in the first place. If he wants the article reinstated it needs to go to deletion review (or at least that is my understanding) Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it is, I had discussions a couple of days ago with User:Vince1973 about the recreation of this article - he and his friend (by his own admission) User:JPMcGavin seem to want to out Brandon Link's allegedly dubious business practices despite my telling them that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for their views. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe just digging myself a hole but, Users User:JPMcGavin and User:Vince1973 seem to be pushing somesort of agenda against some possibly real person that may or may not be participating in unsavory practices. Their only contributions center on the above and recently to editing the Two for the Money article. Personally; I don't gamble, have never seen the movie, and don't consider myself particularly sporty but, I'd really appreciate it if these two Users could be pointed in the direction of making constructive non-agenda pushing edits. If they really believe that the person they are trying to reference is committing a crime they should go to the police. If they simply want to push the website associated with the name they should pay for the appropriate advertising. If they want to push an anti-"whoever" agenda they should send letters to the appropriate people and places. Wikipedia is not the place for what they are doing and it is proving disruptive. I don't want to push a block agenda but, someone needs to help these two be constructive or show them the door. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Originally posted as a second section, moved here by me — Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For the time being I've reverted to the previous per WP:BLP and fully protected until this is looked into. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• They've done it again. JPMcGavin @ 01:59, 16 April 2008 -or- have I just read your post wrong Rodhullandemu? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just I hadn't got round to deleting and salting the latest Brandon lang. Now I have. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Prede and Lord Sesshomaru vandalizing wikipedia pages rules and copyrighted pages-Urgent

look at this discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Third_Eye These users are vandals and insist to make copyright violations here [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif[/IMG][/URL] and here http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg. plus they vandalize this article information with unsourced personal opinions like this one reference number 30 ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.(-fanboy page) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan --Saxnot (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

Note: This may be the same report as the one being responded to here: [18]. The IP 195.23.133.162 appears to be the same as Saxnot; see [19] this edit. Note that that doesn't make Saxnot a sockpuppet -- it's perfectly legit for an IP to register an account -- it just seems that there's some history here. Similar reports were made at various places ([20], [21]). Dispute with Prede is something like a month old (see [22], [23]) and the dispute with User:Sesshomaru may have something to do with [24] this warning. -- Why Not A Duck 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say we are currently in a discusion about what to do with that page in regards to "tiens third eye and if he is human or not". We are not "vandolizing" any page, nor have we broken any copyrighting laws that I am aware of. I have not posted any of those pictures above anyway. This is an attack on us, becuase we have a "dispute" with this user for awhile now. The article is not filled with our personal opinions. In fact we are working on improving the article, although this user has vandolized the talk page on a number of occasions. Check the history of the talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATenshinhan&diff=204813533&oldid=204051211 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan (bottom of page) . Also this user has attacked me personally a few times I do not understand how either of us could be "vandalizing wikipedia pages rules and copyrighted pages" . We are dont doing any of that. This is all nonsense. We have already agreed that if the proof is there for the Tien page, being an alien, we will put it up there. We are currently waiting for a response from someone who has the information. - Prede (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What's all the conmotion about? at the very worst this could only be a bit of Original Research wich is not related to the article's content. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ^ . I do not understand this user. He vandolizes the artciles, and ingages in personal attacks, and then wants us to be banned? Perhaps he should be banned? - Prede (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Being so quick to call these users "vandals" really makes you look like the vandal. JuJube (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems more like a SPA, who even has its own version of Nixon's enemies list. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it bears noting that before Saxnot posted this ANI, he posted pretty much the same request at Media copyright questions, as well as posting virtually the same thing on eight different editors' talk pages. He's clearly on a mission! -- Hux (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I "vandolize",lol.You are funny Caribbean,lol.I provide official information the only one there is and these guys start to call me vandal FIRST. I tried to talk with them,but they insist to keep information without references in the article,these guys also add personal opinions and avoid other users to edit the article with threats and false acusations like this one ex:Impersonation of other editors here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prede&diff=205531698&oldid=204813978#Re:_Tien_not_Human.3F however i only quoted the user folken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Incorrection. Look these guys are kids i don't have enemies in the net,lol.You have a little world,don't you?,lol. How am i a vandal if i don't edit the article?lol

Hey JuJube these guys called me vandal first,huh. I tried to talk with them.They asked me for proof and i showed them OFFICIAL PROOF the only one available about the article. If they want to improve the article why insist they to show fan made information? They ain't nothing,refuse to discuss the subject,make false accusations,etc.I'm not in a mission. Calm down please.--Saxnot (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Saxnot

U.S. Courts Central Violations Bureau (Federal Tickets)

Resolved

 – Page has since been deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Creator keeps removing the speedy delete tag, despite warning not to [25] [26]. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Page has been deleted, for now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent and prolific IP Vandal

Resolved

 – schoolblocked three months. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• 129.143.4.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism is the only thing this IP does. Check its Talk page and its contribution history for months and months. Recommend permanent ban in the strongest possible way. If this is a "shared IP", it's shared by either one vandal or multiple vandals. Block til summer would be ideal if permanent is off the table. Kallahan (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

multiple page move vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked and protected. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wælgæst wæfre (talk · contribs) has moved a load of pages. Could someone with the right set of tools have a look? Mr Stephen (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The user would also appear to be another Grawp sockpuppet. - Bilby (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, and his talk page protected (as is custom for Grawps). All looks gone here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now all that's left is for a CU on the account. If there's one Grawp sock blocked, I can guarantee you that he's got a whole American football roster's worth of men waiting. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already asked Alison (on her talk page) to do the honours. Bencherlite^Talk 09:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'll bet you money the IP that was there before it is the source IP. Grawp's tactics have made him all-too-obvious recently... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The good thing to come out of this is that I now can honestly claim to have deleted the English Wikipedia[27] (and Paris, Venus, Vietnam and some other pages we can do without :-) ). Fram (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unintended damage

Resolved

 – Page has been restored to a sensible place

Can a admin please undo my moves? I was trying to archive a wp biography peer review page. This was not malicious. 137.195.176.12 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops...tried to help and ended up screwing up further. Page in question is Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/2007 (double Wikipedia:), and I'm totally confused. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Navnløs adding vandalism warnings for non-vandal edits

Navnløs (talk · contribs) has a bad habit of issuing vandalism warnings for edits that clearly aren't vandalism. against JzG, against Rockismorethanmusic, against Nouse4aname and against SqueakBox Navnløs issued vandalism warnings for edits that were nothing more than content disputes with the other editors. Navnløs has a lengthy block history for edit warring and violating 3RR. I do not see where this evenings edits/warnings are an attempt to shade 3RR but he's come close on at least one. Perhaps someone could have a discussion with the editor on what vandalism really is and what type of edit deserves a vandalism warning. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can endorse the above statement. I can't be searching for diffs of the past months right now, but i can confirm that the user has done so many times before. Also, the user is fully aware of the criticism shown towards his actions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I do a lot of vandalism protection, ok? And sometimes I admit I do pass out a few vandalism warnings too hastily when I'm not understanding what a user is doing from their edit summary or edit. I usually don't do this much, though (almost not at all), but yesterday people have been going crazy over the Eric Greif page (there is a COI issue there being discussed) and I was quite busy with many things and so a few of my vandalism warnings may have been misplaced. My bad, sorry. My past indisgressions do not represent who I am, mostly. I've improved my editing over time, and yes I do edit on an edge/thin line sometimes and therefore have been blocked when editing the way I think wikipeida should be (there is a rule that says ignore all rules, when appropriate, which caters to people like me "living on the edge") and sometimes rules do need to be broken and I have witnessed many an injustice on wikipedia. Perhaps I do not assume enough good faith (I can get sorely pissed when I see a huge amount of vandalism) and yesterday I ussed some unwarranted vandalism warnings (though I issued others that are not being complained about). As for twsx's comment, both he and I have been known to have had a long dispute on wikipedia and so his words must be weighed carefully. I have not issued vandalism warnings easily, though and there are only a few instances when I gave one too quick. I have many people who can endorse my comments as well...it means little. Nor am I aware of "the criticism shown towards [my] actions." Only a few editors have ever complained about me, twsx usually being one of the first. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, of those four edits, only one of them was really a bad judgement call. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR does not justify anything, it merely tells you to ignore a rule if you can justify the action otherwise, as Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means states. I would bet that either Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means or Wikipedia:Understanding IAR also states that you should not use it as an excuse to do anything controversisal, but, honestly, i am too lazy to read those pages right now. Also, if you are really not aware that people are unhappy with some of the things you do (i am SO assuming good faith here!), you should probably read through your talk page. :-) PS: You still haven't managed to get your indenting right! I fixed it for you. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Horizon Press spammer who also adds content sometimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Touchstone42 appears to be a Horizon Press spammer. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horizontal_gene_transfer&diff=205764788&oldid=202213337 caught my attention. My first three samples of his edits all show Horizon Press links.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacterial_conjugation&diff=prev&oldid=205764340
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vibrio&diff=prev&oldid=202796323
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinc_finger_nuclease&diff=prev&oldid=205762331

But some might be valid additions. This should be looked at carefully without knee-jerk acceptance or reverts. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http: //spam.horizonpress.com

• horizonpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

Touchstone42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

It's definitely spam. The user has not cited any other references than Horizon Press books and it has not occurred to the user in 8 months of editing = 300+ edits just to use the ISBN. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I add content to Wiki from scientific books published by Horizon Scientific Press. For Verifiability I understood that the correct citation would be the book that the material comes from. I do not have access to any other published material so the only references I cite are to Horizon Press books. In future I have three options:

1. Stop adding content to Wiki
2. Add content without references
3. Add content with references to Horizon Press books

I welcome any help or suggestions and will take your advice seriously. Many thanks Touchstone42 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've heard that excuse before (oddly enough, the pattern of spamming in that case is very similar to what we have here). Google is your friend. So is your local library. You also didn't read what I said above - you could just use the ISBN instead of adding links to the publisher's website, like this: ISBN 978-0-12-345678-9 produces ISBN 978-0-12-345678-9. Or simply cite other material. MER-C 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit the page on Cholera, which contains three references to books by Caister Academic Press aka. horizonpress.com. The links seem valid. The references could be kept without URLs, but having a direct link to the books in question seems ok to me. Why not? BTW. the ISBN is also included, the url is simply "extra info". Pvanheus (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#horizonpress.com about the urgency of resolving the issue of >200 articles with now-blacklisted links. To minimize disruption for our regular editors, they either need to be removed ASAP or else the domain needs to be temporarily removed from the blacklist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In future I will only use the ISBN as suggested by MER-C. Thanks for all your helpTouchstone42 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 violating parole, repeat violator

Resolved

 – Complaint moved to WP:AE, the proper forum. GRBerry 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:

diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block request

Resolved

I'm requesting that the following accounts be blocked for sockpuppetry actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baronetcy of Srebrenica, as confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerDurden1963:

• User:TylerDurden1963
• User:DrHollisCollier
• User:ThalloczyŠufflay
• User:83.245.110.2
• User:11347TCroa
• User:Prettyblondegirl
• User:Thomasthesnail
• User:Generalseven
• User:Topofthemorning11
• User:BarrieSenior

Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked most indef. User:TylerDurden1963 is blocked for one week, being the oldest and possibly main account - will adjust if he indicates another account is the main. Also, no block on the IP since I'm not sure its static. Shell ^babelfish 08:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One week seems lenient, not even one day per sock abused. Also it appears that the purpose was to create (and impede the deletion of) a deliberate hoax. If this is true it would be a greater problem than sock-puppetry and I would recommend a much longer block. — CharlotteWebb 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosherfrog

Kosherfrog (talk · contribs) claims to represent an organisation called ACOR (acor.org) that runs forums for patients with particular diseases. Presently, WP:MEDMOS (the medical manual of style) discourages links to closed "support forums" for the obvious reasons. Kosherfrog came to WT:MEDMOS to ask for a revision of this policy, and received much opposition from most editors there. He then made the following threat: "I certainly have gained enough understanding about the mentality of the medical editors of wikipedia to be able to write some really interesting articles in other venues that pay attention to the needs of the long tail of medicine"[28] While this is not a legal threat, I find it very hard to work constructively with editors who threaten to expose Wikipedians in other publications, and claim to represent large organisations to boot.

I asked this contributor to retract his threats.[29] The response was emphatically negative.[30] I was wondering what others thought of this approach. JFW | T@lk 10:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To be direct, is that all? I'd say that first edit reeks more of incivility than any sort of serious "threat". I also think pouncing on this editor over this specific implication would be overdoing it and not good for the project. As long as it can stay civil, opposition to policy can be very healthy. That all being said, if this user continues to support his arguments by claiming he will write on the incompetence of a certain group of editors, then he will clearly be violating wp:civil and should be warned/handled as such. I just don't see us at that point yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy in question is under continuous scrutiny, and recently there have been several debates on its exact reach and implementation. Other editors made an obvious effort to consider Mr Frog's arguments, and returned with their findings. There is practically consensus that the links in question do not warrant inclusion.

Would you be happy to remind this editor of his duty to remain civil and participate in constructive debate rather than agitate? JFW | T@lk 12:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done so here. To sum up, I didn't ask Kosher to retract his earlier statement, but asked him to remain civil in his arguments and advised him of the inflammatory nature of certain discussion techniques. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: WP:POINT disruption at Talk:Deaths in 2008 - Block review please

You will remember there was some argy-bargy at Mark Speight the other evening due to myself and User:Islander attempting to keep editing within policy, specifically WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP as the death hadn't been confirmed. A user made some inappropriate comments on the above page which I deleted per Wikipedia:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages and Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable). 62.64.201.155 (talk · contribs), whom I suspect to be the author of the original comments keeps restoring these, citing vandalism, but not policy. Since these edits contain personal attacks on myself, I figure they should be on my talk page or his, but not on a peripherally-related article. I've now blocked the IP for 31 hours but would welcome a review here. Admins need to be able to apply policy without this sort of WP:POINTy disruptions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you're dealing with angry IPs, you have to expect a certain amount of anger from them. I don't really see where s/he attacks your character in this diff, apart from telling you to grow up; which is not exactly vicious. You could probably have avoided the need to block by rising above it. However, since they were replaced repeatedly, a brief block is in order and since you were there you might as well deal with the minor matter yourself, though I don't really understand why 12 or 24 hours was insufficient. Also not quite sure what your bit about "personal attacks should be on my talk page or his" is about - they occur where they occur and there is no 'proper' venue for them!!

Personally, I think was a rather obtuse interpretation of policy; the subject was dead and the whole world knew it. There is no policy that says Wikipedia must be factually wrong. Insisting that edits be made to maintain Wikipedia's article in a state of containing overtly erroneous facts was not, imo, the optimal course of action. Splash - tk 12:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I take your point but at the time even the BBC were saying "believed to be dead" and I didn't think we should go beyond that. But you try explaining that to an influx of editors who think that Wikipedia should (a) be a news service and (b) "lead the pack", to paraphrase one. Perhaps WP:BLP isn't that strong a policy after all and I've misread it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sickoflies22 and Rachel Z's birthdate

I'm routing this here instead of the BLP noticeboard because of the latest development.

Sickoflies22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made—other than a comment on my talk page—no edits other than to the Rachel Z article. Based on her edit summaries ([31] [32] [33]) she has implied that she is Rachel Z. She has been encouraged to email the Foundation so this can be verified/addressed by Foundation personnel.

Her concern is with her birthdate appearing in the article. This was initially deleted because of lack of reliable sources. However, it has now been found in two sources (Rochester Jazz Festival bio [34] and ENotes [35]), so it was re-inserted into the article in the grounds that it was "widely published".

The problem is she has now made legal threats against the Foundation [36], so this is beyond a simple BLP issue. Hence, I'm bringing it here for other admins to review. —C.Fred (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was reporting this when your report popped up. Seems a clear violation of WP:LEGAL. I'd say block them as per WP:LEGAL, with a talk page note explaining how to get in touch with the foundation. Redrocket (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...and indefinitely blocked until this issue can be resolved or the threat is recanted. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Both those bios are exactly the same, so it's hardly "widely published". WP:BLP specifically states "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." - so why is it still in there? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the day that is the problem, it is the year that the alleged subject is complaining about. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah my bad for not checking the diffs, I assumed it was a common day and month privacy affair. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because she hasn't emailed the foundation to try and establish that she is actually the person in question. Unless she does that, this user could be anybody. Redrocket (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to assume good faith on the part of the now-blocked account, and remove the birth date entirely. Any objections? Antandrus (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because of the legal threat, or of some other reason? seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it because I'm not sure two websites meet the notion of "widely published." However, please feel free to revert me. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agree with Gwen, and two reasons from me, mainly: 1) that I think it really is Rachel Z, and if she says it is wrong, it is reasonable to take her at her word; and 2) it's not widely published/known, and it is reasonable to presume the date found elsewhere on the web is in error. Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Third source at The Rough Guide to Jazz Google Book Search page image. Though I'll concede that all the sources in question could be coming from one erroneous listing, so we can't rule out that the year is wrong. —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this more deeply, I'm finding lots of wide and sundry support for a 1962 birth date. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Her Berklee alumni blurb also says 1962. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would, it's an old copy of our article. CIreland (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was JUST writing about the possibility that this entire mess is a propagation of errors situation ,where one old error is being spread via citation. It would seem so. Until a serious cause for inclusion is demonstrated, I support removal per BLP, the above cited policy/guideline, and general good sense. She's not demanding whole control of the article, just some accuracy or privacy. the above error CIreland shows demonstrates that in this particular case, verifiability over 'truth' fails. Let's assume the subject knows her own age, remove it from article, and in absence of overwhelming need for inclusion, drop the matter. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for dropping it from the article, but no error at all has been shown. As it happens, this date has been widely published for years and in sources which are clearly not derived from our article. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

SO... everyone else doing it, let's do it too? How many of those sources have reliable sources? Clearly, one you brought up does NOT. So we're back to OUR article, which is being refuted by the subject. I'm not arguing for her to get control, but I am arguing for facts, and for BLP. neither supports inclusion right now. I'd suggest instead explaining OTRS to her, letting her and her lawyer has it out with the OFFICE, and until then, keep it off the article. This is NOT an urgent issue, and shes' not a world-stage level personage. IF she says she can prove her age, let her and her lawyer do that. I've yet to see a convincing reason for inclusion. This is a good case of BLP not being robust enough. Delete the info until the OFFICE weighs in. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm being very misunderstood here. I don't think her birth date should be in the article if she objects to it (privacy, WP:BLP), nor do I think it should be included in any way until this has been resolved. However, I find neither support for the notion this date was propagated only by a single error in our article beginning four years ago, nor any other cited birth year (so far), yet she's a demonstrably notable musician. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may suggest a compromise, let's take down the year of birth for a week, and unblock her account to give her a chance to contact the foundation and verify that she is who she says she is. It's not an emergency situation or a clear case of a WP:BLP violation, but I think assuming good faith with her would help this get settled amicably. After a week if she hasn't tried to prove her case, we'll put the properly sourced original birthdate back up. Redrocket (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

She's retracted the remark and happily, has been unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an open OTRS ticket, and per that, the date has been removed. I think this is settled, and it's good to see someone being sensible and straightforward about this. That she had to resort to considering legal action, and our first response is a block... BLP needs work. ThuranX (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, the block was lifted fast but why put her through that drama? Might it be reasonable to implement some kind of a block delay on legal threats made by WP:BLP contacts? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's roughly the sentiment that underlies WP:DOLT. It a sentiment with which I strongly disagree (and one that is inconsistent with WP:NLT, which exists for a few important reasons and at least in part at the [less-than-explicit, I guess] behest of the Foundation), but DOLT does well to encapsulate it in any case and would, I suppose, provide the framework for any changes to NLT that one might, per BLP, essay. Joe 06:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are legal threats. The standard procedure is to block and let it go through the proper channels. There was a very fast turnaround and the matter is now resolved. seicer | talk | contribs 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And, as it turns out, this was, apparently, a justified and sustainable threat. The Foundation backs her. Odds are, her lawyer did the talking. Legal Threats, is, first off, a bad way to view all comments about legal action, as it lets ANY mention of getting lawyers involved become a bannable offense, even 'how do I direct my lawyer to the right contact' becomes a 'vague, unsettling implied legal threat', when it's quite possible the person simply intends to 'escalate' to a person whose clout and power mean that clear reasoning and accountability exist. There's a hell of a difference between 'That's libel, and since you won't help me, I'll get my lawyer to make a call to the WMF' and 'if you don't take down my article, i'll sue you and rape your mom while pouring sugar in the gas tank'. One's rational calm people doing what all of us do all the time: Ask to speak to the manager. The other's an irrational moron, nad can be blocked. Our policy needs revision to account for the REAL world. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation may back her at this point, but even after an editor told her on her talk page who to email to start the process, she responded with "If you do not remove-legal action shall ensue very soon due to the fact that you are ruining my career and my personal lofe and you have no right. I have retained Ken Hertz -a very influential lawyer and will press charges." I think we're looking back on this problem with the information we have currently, and making judgements. When she started editing here, we had no proof that she was actually the subject of the article. She was just an editor who was threatening to bring charges against wikipedia for giving out information that's available other places on the web. To me, the initial block was sound, as was the unblock and removal of the information once the situation calmed down and proper channels were followed. Redrocket (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Having become aware of more details about this, I believe following existing policy with the block was ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS has rm'd the date from the article altogether. I suggest closing this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka and Turkey-related material

Resolved

. Ok, not resolved, but dispute resolution is that way, third door on the left. Don't forget to flush. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka seems to be making edits in relation to Turkey that express a strongly political POV and is reacting uncivilly when contradicted or reverted. See for example this edit. Can an admin have a look and perhaps please have a word with him? --Pleasantville (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From his recent contributions, he seems to be sweeping through articles that have any mention of a Europe - Turkey connection and removing that info on the spot without editorial discussion. Looks like it could be a bigger issue than just incivility. I'm not sure bombarding his talk page with warnings will help. For now I'll post on his talk page about this thread and ask him to respond here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, what is the issue? ETA, "I'm not sure bombarding his talk page with warnings will help" am I to understand I am being setup for a ban? Koalorka (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is well-summarized by Gwynand. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What type of bigger issue could this be? I'm simply removing incorrect information. Would it be reasonable for me to start editing Denmark as an Asian nation and then demand discussion and consensus building though the claim has no factual basis and is utterly ridiculous? No, it would not be reasonable. That is why I removed the uncontroversial and incorrect content. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG, why are you so against Turkey being defined as a European country? Seriously, looking at your edits, you're so fanatical about it. Onur (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm pedantic and do not tolerate misinformation and slanted propaganda. Koalorka (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so misinformative and propagandic about it? Its a widely accepted fact that some Turkish territory lies in Europe. Onur (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Context: There is some debate about the proposed entry of Turkey into the European Union. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The European Union is completely irrelevant in this context. What our argument is about is whether Turkey is classified as a European country or not, because Koalorka keeps on removing the Turkish American article from the Template:European Americans. Onur (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that Gwen, although I am not sure if it is relevant. Just to point out that this notice is in no way established to prove that Koal is wrong regarding Turkey, rather this is dealing more with correct ways to go about making mass changes in articles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why Onur says there's no link but keep in mind, this has been argued edit warred about at least since Constantine I moved there, though I think much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean it's not relevant to a content dispute, I just mean it's not relevant to this incident which has to do with civility and editing procedures. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spot on what I was getting at. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Onur and Koalorka, remain civil. This noticeboard is not for discussing content disputes. Koalorka, I agree with removing propaganda on the spot, but that does not encompass everything. Sweeping through pages and removing the same info even if it is wrong is not the best way to go about improving articles. I am unaware of the specifics of the dispute and will not get involved, but if you believe you have factual information and believe articles should be changed as such, bring up the info on respective talk pages to gain consensus. Also provide sources. As always, remain civil with other editors as this is the only way to truly be able to discuss the factual points of an issue. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

10-4 on that. I do believe in consensus. I'll do my best. Koalorka (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that! Look, administrators, could you please read mine and Koalorka's debates (here and here) and actually TRY to understand what the hell's going on, please?! Onur (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And that love-hate debate has been going on since the 14th century. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this template apply here:

Avruch ^T 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging from a look at his most recent summaries, it appears that Koalorka has not taken yesterday's advice to heart. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend, because this is a content dispute, to bring it to dispute resolution. Bring the diffs of his recent activity. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Edit blocking

The Fox News entry has been blocked to editing because one or two editors continually revert entirely any changes to the lead entry. The majority of editors in an RfC have expressed disapproval with the POV status of the lead. Yet because of "edit wars" that occur when these two editors continually revert changes, an administrator has blocked the page indefinitely. The effect is that an extreme minority of editors and one administrator has ensured that the version the majority of editors has agreed needs to be changed will not be changed... indefinitely.

The admin says to pursue dispute resolution and form a consensus before editing. Now I may be mistaken, but the highest form of dispute resolution I see for content disputes is mediation. I have asked the warring parties to mediate with me, and they have refused. The discussion has hit a standstill as they have made it clear they simply do not accept the reliable sources the majority approves. The primary reverter has never once compromised to to find a common ground, yet the editors in the RfC majority who disapprove of the lead have offered up multiple versions. I don't see how blocking this page is going to solve this problem. Editing is a critical part of consensus building according to wp:CONSENSUS. The "consensus" that is allegedly the goal of this indefinite blocking is a literal impossibility. At least one of the editors in favor of keeping the current version has refused to give any ground and has made it virtually certain he will oppose any changes to the that attempt to create NPOV. Since the admin who blocked the page has said he will not unblock it until there is consensus, this page is the equivalent of one of those ridiculous "locked for editing" pages over at conservapedia.com that the site owners worry might actually have some balance introduced if they let people edit. It cannot be right that one editor and one admin can, in theory, prevent the development of a page indefinitely.Jsn9333 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the template and rushed to conclusions. At the top, it reads: "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version..." And to request an edit, to use {{editprotected}}. Try doing that first. seicer | talk | contribs 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who protected the page, I wish to note that indefinite doesn't mean permanent. The edit warring is quite severe on the page so I have chosen not to set an expiry date to the protection. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The owners of this article are pretty militant when it comes to keeping their POV in the article. Good luck anyways. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow

Hi folks, some IP's have been playing troll and vandal with this BLP article. Can someone review my blocks and keep an eye on it? If I've made an error, please slap me with a fish. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, you blocked 71.243.188.89 indef; I thought WP didn't block anons? And 3 months seems a little long for a first block on 72.65.2.181. -- Why Not A Duck 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reset it to 3 hours due to dynamic IP usage. As a guideline, we do not block anonymous IP addresses indefinitely. seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do block IPs when there is a reasonable danger of repeated vandalism. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked the IP with the 3 month block (assumed you wouldn't have a problem with that Bearian, let me know if I'm wrong), since the IP hopping vandal has already moved on to a new one (I blocked the newest one for 3 hours). If they don't get bored, semi protection should o the trick. --barneca (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Improper Deletion

The page, Swift's printers was improperly deleted by user:Geogre. According to here, he claims the following outright wrong items: "he "article" had footnotes to non-existent references, and it contained material that is completely duplicated." The references in the article were completely real and published by verifiable sources. It was also an article just created. The reason why the user deleted it was to make room for his own page, George Faulkner. Did he seek to improve the other page? Did he seek to bother with it? No. He has harassed my talk page and claimed that my writing is horrible, and he goes and deletes things in an improper manner. As you can see from here that he did not bother to even put it up on a deletion board. All that is left is this. This user has abused his administrative powers, has acted in an extremely uncivil manner, and needs to be dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly should be done at this point to "deal with" Geogre, but I'll note that "Duplicate material in Jonathan Swift and articles on each work" isn't part of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also, saying "Wikipedia is not the Special Olympics encyclopedia" is needlessly insulting. If Swift's printers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) really duplicates material in George Faulkner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or in Jonathan Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then there needs to be some discussion of how to merge the articles and how to best present the information. The insults and the hostility from both sides needs to be calmed down. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well, I find "the purpose of Wikipedia is to compliment people" to be insulting, and unnecessarily so, as it insults the work that I and others have been doing for four years. And if you wish to "merge" "he printed for Swift" into an article, then you must really, really want to preserve some contribs, because that doesn't seem like very unique information to me. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - The original purpose for the "printers" page was to have a place to deal with the printing controversy. It was also to discuss the arrest of Harding for printing two of Swift's works and some of the other problems related to the printing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also failing to see the CSD being used here. This should be undeleted, and it would be very nice if we didn't have to start a DRV just to do that.. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If Geogre does not revert himself by tomorrow, I am prepared to do so. I note that this was a clear case not just of using the tools wrong, but of using them to support himself in an content dispute. DGG (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What content dispute did I have, DGG? You know my motivation and my thinking, it appears, and all without the agony of asking me what they were, so I'm sure you're prepared to tell me the content dispute I was in with Ottava Rima over that article. What edits had I made that he had warred over? What did I want in that he wanted out? Either apologize or explain, please. You have accused me of abuse of position and explained why I did it. I would appreciate your supporting that absurd and hideous charge, or I would appreciate your apology. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• If even Geogre thought it was irredeemable, then I think it's fair to say it probably was. It was a personal essay on the printers used by Swift, apparently forked because osme people thought there was too much detail and too much OR in the section in Jonathan Swift. See WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Going by this Google Cache, I really don't see a reason for such an article. Having sources does not in itself create notability—there has to be some purpose, and I'm not seeing it here...I'm seeing a list of people who printed books for someone. Nah. Take it to WP:DRV if you truely object to the deletion and want some discussion on it—the deletion was not that bad that it should be overturned via ANI discussion, and I urge DGG not do so. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • Just a note: the article had footnotes, but no references. That was one mangling already. It had footnote 9, when there had been only 2 previous notes. Isn't that a little curious? Additionally, the references were 1) Out of date, 2) Commonplace. A person needs a note to the now-archaic Ehrenpreis to say that Motte was Swift's printer? That is found in every edition of GT, in every encyclopedia, in every literary companion, every biographical dictionary, etc. In other words, a footnote there is nothing but glitter. Like I said, though, the references were in some cases wrong. Geogre (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the article was in the process of being worked until you came along, constantly harassed me, deleted it while violating multiple rules, and then prevented it from being expanded. And Ehrenpreis as archaic? Oh gesh. You really are a POV pusher in the most absurd manner. Nothing you say is verifiable or accurate. Last time I talked to Dr. Rawson, he still thought that Ehrenpreis was relevant and an important part of Swift criticism. And if you don't understand why Rawson would know such a thing, then you really don't know a thing about the academic circle. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is pretty silly, if you'll all forgive me. Do I think the author of the article is a dunce? Yes. Did I delete it because of that? No. My deletion reasoning was as follows:
  1. The material was duplicated in other articles, including articles on the "printers" themselves
  2. The members of this "list" share no outstanding qualities except the accidental association with a client
  3. The article was misnamed, as, while each of these were printers, several were also book sellers
  4. Were there to be an expansion possible, it would belong quite obviously in the biography article Jonathan Swift.
• So, because duplicate material fails the deletion guideline, because the potential expansion would be logically placed in an existing article, because the article actually prevented readers from getting information because it limited these people to "they printed for Swift," I did a deletion.
• However, the reason this is silly is that, if people think there is an improper deletion, we need only use WP:DRV. People come to AN/I when they're trying to ring the fire alarm. There is no fire. There isn't even smoke. All is well. Geogre (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that there were four printers, and you were the only one to make a page on one of the printers after the fact. The article was only about the printing of Swift's books, which you would have known if you would have bothered to read the page. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines point out that not all biographical detail belongs in the biography page, as there are many separate pages for such things. The problem here is that you violated the conflict of interest, have constantly been incivil, and you delete this. You are abusing multiple Wikipedia policies and abusing admin tools in the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user, user:Geogre, still has no ability to act civil. See here for more of his incivility. "he fact that I also regard the author as a bellicose dunce is irrelevant. I'm not the kind of person who uses teh buttons to win arguments. Instead, the ignorance of the article's creator led him to make something that was unnecessary and duplicate; had he simply checked other articles" There is no reason for such comments like this, and Geogre has made these comments on my talk page, his talk page, and multiple forums. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're allowed to delete content that is not useful. We're also allowed to describe and evaluate content, even if this means saying it's not good. If there is a remaining' content dispute, we have talk pages for that. I don't see any remaining problem here to be solved, unless the deletion is still in dispute. But please don't go to deletion review on a technicality. Friday (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Friday, please quote from the speedy deletion criteria that allows him to delete such a thing, especially when it is a stub page that is being worked on? Improper procedure along with using admin tools in a content dispute that he started while insulting an editor is not proper admin behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ottava Rima, I've listed Swift's printers at WP:DRV.--PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I made my initial comment and, as the creator, I will only respond to queries in order to stay objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article Karo Parisyan

This article was recently (last night/this morning) deleted by Jeepday as a blatant copyvio of this page. While I respect Jeepday, I believe he made the wrong call. I also believe this merits the attention of more admins, because the copyvio that's happening here is that WIKIPEDIA'S copyrighted material has been lifted wholesale in clear violation of the GFDL.
I posted a fairly thorough explanation for what happened at Talk:Karo Parisyan, but of course that's since been deleted. Hopefully, y'all admins can view the deleted edits. Long story short, our page was in place first, our text developed over time, etc. Furthermore, Karo's official "about me" page contains deliberate factual errors that were demonstrated to have come about via a Wikipedia vandal on Karo's page, and the version that was ripped to Karo's site still contained pieces of that vandalism. I found exact diffs of Karo's Wikipedia entry that matched various sections of the "about me" page and also explained perfectly why Karo's own page would contain deliberate factual errors and contradictory information. After posting this explanation to Karo's talk page (and noting the dispute here on the Copyright problems board), the user who posted the copyvio notice told me that he agreed with my analysis (diff). Furthermore, a review of the source code of the offending site revealed that it still had Wikilinks in place for each and every single thing that we wikilinked on the article. The copyvio notice got removed, and everything appeared okay. The other day, someone put it back without explanation, and the article was subsequently quickly deleted. For obvious reasons, I cannot provide diffs of that.
Now I'm not doing this to start a wheel war or accuse Jeepday of anything. I just don't think he was correct in deleting the page, and in this situation it's creating a dangerous precedent. Here we have a webmaster who has wholesale ripped off Wikipedia's copyrighted material. In response to that, we, the people who created and developed the article, get accused of violating their copyright. That's fundamentally wrong on so many levels. This needs more admin attention, and also the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I ask that someone restore the main page and the talk page, with all revisions intact. The possibility that our Wikipedia page is in violation of someone else's copyright is zero, so there is no damage being done by restoring our page. If an admin decides that the copyvio tag needs to remain in place until the issue is further discussed, that's fine. We just need more eyeballs on this so the right thing can happen; that's not going to work if the article remains deleted and the case is considered closed. Gromlakh (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored for review, When I did a second look I found earlier versions that did not look like the potential copyvio source. Not sure how I missed them. Lets continue the conversation on the article talk page. Jeepday (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of that. I just wanted to make sure more eyeballs were on it because of the possible violation of the GFDL by Karo's webmaster. Gromlakh (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Per my second review at Talk:Karo Parisyan there is little doubt at this point that karo-parisyan.com is mirroring wikipedia without giving credit per the GFDL requirement. I leave it to others to pursue that if they would like. Otherwise this is resolved, I had wrongly deleted the article, it is now restored and the copyvio tag removed. Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of work with the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

Resolved

 – Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Under career, please change to President of the Muscular Dystrophy Campiagn's Young Pavement Artist Competition.

Source: "Statement on Mark Speight" Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

The President of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign is Sue Barker MBE

Source found in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign's Impact Report 2006/2007 "Annual Reports and Annual Reviews" Muscular Dystrophy Campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilapatel01 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. By the way, when you are unable to edit a page due to its being semi-protected, leaving a message at its Talk page may get a quicker response. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, posting here at WP:DRAMA rather than at an individual talk page almost always guarantees a quicker response. Maybe we shouldn't encourage that though. Mike R (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mark Speight article is now unprotected anyway, since his inquest has been opened and adjourned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Note of personal attack ...

• 10:38, 15 April 2008 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (9,595 bytes) (bad sourcing and more Reddi nonsense

"Reddi nonsense" is substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is a comment not on the content. Thisis not civil. J. D. Redding 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing your edit war and original research to administrator attention. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't know the history (and probably don't want to) but... there are definitely some civility issues with User:ScienceApologist and his recent posts to User:Reddi's talk page and to WP:FTN. I think despite editwaring and original research that the matter of civility is still a valid one. Just my two cents Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not excusing any incivility, but it would seem that if you remove the edit warring and OR, there would be no incivility problems. --Kbdank71 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist pushes his POV through incivility and edit warring. Will there be anything done about this? J. D. Redding 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it has been rehashed out at literally every public venue at Wikipedia so many times, that any new reports generated have a diminished impact and value, especially when such reports are frivolous. seicer | talk | contribs 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, nonsense is more or less another word for codswallop. I don't see a personal attack here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Codswallop? Now I've got use my OED again. Sheesh! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can help you there...

Codswallop. n. the action of being smacked in the face by a wet fish. eg. That was one hell of a codswallop. Orig. Anc. English - it's akin to a troutswallop, but a codswallop is generally more expensive than a troutswallop (and only employed by those who don't care about sustainable fish stocks). _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told that's an older, now mostly deprecated etymology. The word is slang (UK) for nonsense. Erm, but troutswallop's kinda fit too :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The edition I'm working on is so old that I think the definition of codswallop contained therein may have been one of the ones contributed by William Chester Minor. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So Dr Minor stumbled upon his own Wikipedia back in the day then :P Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, yes. Right before he cut off his own penis... _GB^T/C 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Had he gotten a civility block? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that was the punishment for a repeat 3RR offence back in those days - rather than a block of indeterminate length you ended up with a co.....well, I'm sure you get the idea. _GB^T/C 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah JzG blah blah ScienceApologist blah blah thin skin... come back when you're not rehashing this debate again. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know the true story behind the term "codswallop" (no, I really do!) but have no references or cites and if I were to tell you, you would have to edit yourself out for fear of Original Research... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

J.D., if ScienceApologist is incivil with you, leave a polite notice on his talk page to stop the behavior. Keep doing this every time he is incivil with you if he doesn't stop. Then, if it keeps happening, come here and state briefly what is going on and provide the diffs. If it is repeatedly incivil behavior, an admin may do something about it. If it's just one time, probably not. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try. Thanks Cla68. J. D. Redding 05:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I fear this translates to "please continually badger SA on his talk page in hopes that he will blow up." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with user 216.234.60.106 a.k.a. E Pluribus Anthony

I'm not sure if this is the place to report this, but there's this one user that I'm almost 100% sure is the same person as known sockpuppeteer E Pluribus Anthony. Like E Pluribus Anthony, user 216.234.60.106 constantly reverts edits of articles that do not conform to his agenda. He does this with very little justification, and it's always on geography-themed pages. I've currently been attempting to resolve a dispute with him over just what constitutes East Africa, but to no avail. I've done an incredible amount of research on the topic, loaded my edits with references that support my case, and painstakingly explained the rationale behind them on the talk page of the article we're at loggerheads over. However, 216.234.60.106/E Pluribus Anthony has made very little effort in return to support his case. He hasn't tried for some days now to find any new references or to address any of the legitimate concerns I've raised. All he has done is revert, revert, revert, labeling my edits "intransigent" along the way. I've explained to him that that does not qualify as a justification, and I've asked him repeatedly to explain his latest edits and to address my latest comments on the discussion page. He just ignores me and/or gives me evasive, condescending one-liners before getting right back to reverting. It's clear he has no desire whatsoever to present a neutral point of view. Please have a look at the article and talk page in question. Please read my dialogue with him and our arguments, and then read the discussion on the same page between the user Aris Katsaris and E Pluribus Anthony. I'm positive that's the same guy. They're both incredibly flippant and condescending, they both are accused of the exact same thing and present the same sort of responses in return, and they both use the same archaic and stodgy expressions like "apropos". I just checked E Pluribus Anthony's sockpuppet profile, and it describes user 216.234.60.106 perfectly. 70.48.96.91 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a report should be made here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apropos" is "archaic and stodgy"? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thay may have been thinking of porridge, an easy mistake to make - too little water from the instructions of an obselete cookbook? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of Snookerhorn

I bring most blocks I make here for review even when I think they're probably no big deal. In accordance with that custom, I've blocked Snookerhorn (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for 24 hours for disruption. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive138#Complex_talk_page_instructions for more information/context. Snookerhorn was counseled by several admins and others that his talk page instructions were so complex as to be unusable (this diff gives a good view), and that he could not place unworkable demands on how others communicate with him, or edit the words of others except to remove them completely, or categorise their attempts disparagingly. His responses ([37], [38], [39] among others) show that at present he's not here to contribute constructively, but sees this as some sort of nomic. I've only blocked just the one sock for now... but another (almost certain, per a CU I ran) sock tried to require that all messages left on his page be in latin. Funny ha ha, but not very useful. Comments welcome as always. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems in order. I don't find this particularly constructive nor responsible communication. Rudget 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, and he should be warned that such obstructionism, if continued, canresult in longer blocks, and a ban. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor job. The next time it occurs, I would ask that the administrators be a little more attentive to policy. Nothing was mentioned as to the proscription on "cooling-off" blocks which Lars simply violated. I doubt that Lars really wanted to mention the block here because he routinely does so with "most blocks"; rather, he did so because he wanted to see if anyone would object to a tyrannical, unwarranted, and impermissible action on his part. I am less than pleased to see that none of you objected, or even raised the question for discussion. If guidelines are to be preserved, they must be applied evenly to everyone, otherwise they quickly lose their legitimacy and situations develop out of control. Snookerhorn (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse

Does anybody watch and/or take care of this page? --Rembaoud (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's not as active as some pages, but people definitely maintain it. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete me

I want to be deleted, immediately I can not tolerate the hostile attacks against me and the continuing undoing of all i ever edited. This is nonsense. Delete me, NOW. Good bye. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User accounts are not deleted. I can, however, delete your userpage and blank your talk page. `Nakon 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to tolerate the ongoing personal attacks and accusations and the undoing of all my attemps to make wikipedia better. Delete my account, NOW. I fed up with this ultra-agressivity i get whenever i log in. Delete me, please. Good bye. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage deleted. Talkpage courtesy blanked, per precedent and policy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And just letting you know that your account can't be deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On that note, they're not refusing to delete your account just because- it's impossible at the technical level, and due to the licensing Wikipedia is under. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Bombshell

I've just indefinitely blocked Bombshell (talk · contribs), Lafcadio Wluiki (talk · contribs), and Amédée Fleurissoire (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, with Wen Jiabao (talk · contribs) (Blocked by User:Orangemike for the username policy) also used for the same purpose. Bombshell has been edit warring on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay over the table showing the route for the past couple days - I blocked him yesterday for 12 hours for a clear 3RR violation. Following that block, he logged out and used an IP address to contest the block (see User_talk:Hersfold#User_talk:Bombshell), as well as make accusations against other editors ([40]). The IP address was of course then blocked for 12 hours for block evasion. Today, I was notified by several editors who have been trying to engage Bombshell in discussion on the article's talk page that a number of single-purpose accounts had been created (those listed above). Each went immediately to the article's talk page and had an in-depth knowledge of what was going on in the debate. One went so far as to contact another editor about the situation, with a similar plea to block the other involved editors that had been given to me the day before by the IP address ([41]). Bombshell has a recent history of sockpuppetry, (see block log, although note that the first block appears to have been applied to an IP address) and given the obvious nature of the socks, I felt a block was warranted. Since this had little discussion before hand, I'm bringing the matter here for wider attention. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlink trolls?

I've found two redlink users who appear to be vandals, and I wouldn't normally bring it up, but it seems that this is part of a larger recent problem. User:SvenKistner is a simple vandal, but User:Poppyfurkin deleted material based on a supposed NPOV violation on his first and thus far only edit. It's a bit tedious to RFCU for only a few edits, but as I said, it seems to be part of a larger problem. Is anyone looking into it? MSJapan (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is checkuser problem here. I also note that neither has been given a warning about their conduct and I am not absolutely certain this is vandalism. In any case, neither seems to be active at the moment. JodyB _talk 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know (and the former was warned), but I was referring to the larger problem of there being a large number of these sorts of vandals lately. MSJapan (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger harrassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Igorberger blocked indefinitely as per community consensus - with provisions made for Barneca to mentor and if Igorberger reaches a point where he appears to be ready to re-join the community - Barneca to put in a suggestion of his unblocking at a new ANI thread

--VS ^talk 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger is harrassing me.

Most of his dislike for me stems from disputes in Talk:Anti-Americanism. The problem is that recently he has taken his "battle" to other articles. He is obviously checking my contribs and following me around to get involved with whatever I do.

At the Village Pump, I proposed a general policy that anti-[nation] articles follow the naming convention (identity), e.g. only self-identified anti-Americans should be called anti-American. [42] He made no contribution there, but announced (dishonestly) in anti-Americanism Talk page that I wanted to delete all these articles [43].

Then he took the issue to the Talk page of an article I've never read, edited, or discussed, and used the same technique to rabble-rouse against me. He told editors there, none of whom I know, to watch out for me. Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#All_anti-country_articles_are_POV. Again, he misrepresents (can I say "lies about"?) what I said (I haven't said anything should be deleted).

I recently made a small edit to the article on Phillip K. Dick. Within hours Igor showed up, and started editing that article, including reverting my edits. [44]

He filed a sockpuppetry case on me, in which he compares me to Hitler, with a The Final Solution reference (it is hard to follow): [45]

In the anti-Americanism article itself, his comments toward me are always dismissive and often personal. I would ignore them, but when he follows me around to other articles, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Here he says he can't assume good faith because I am "trying to influence and change Wikipedia policy." [46] He also doesn't refer to me by name but by as "the SSP & SPA" I don't even know what SSP means (I'm sure it's not good) but I think SPA is single-purpose account.

Here he continues belittling me: [47]

Here he belittles my attempt to explain my position: [48]

More dismissive comments: [49]

There is more, but I won't go on. The main problem is that I cannot ignore him, because he has decided to follow me around Wikipedia. Life.temp (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, back when Life.temp started the Village Pump discussion, Igor advised people to consider Life.temp's status as an "SPA" before considering his suggestions [50]. I had reverted that comment on the grounds that it was harassment [51], to which Igor responded by leaving me this [52] on my talk page. I then responded on his talk page [53]. I've had my own long-term problems with Igor and short of blocking him for being a general nuisance, we should at least make sure he doesn't engage in blatant harassment. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:29, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has just posted a Wikiquette Alert for Life.temp: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Life.temp. This was done after he was notified of this ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has always been a "problem" editor, and he's got into bother before but this is too far, following someone around harrrasing them is wikistalking--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and he was been warned far too many times. Tiptoety ^talk 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to wait until the RFCU is processed. Life.temp is certainly displaying a lot of well known sockpuppet tendencies. Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(From my entirely civil interactions with) User:Igorberger, they can be difficult to understand at times. From other observations I have made (concerning previous posts to this page), this can be a problem. And Igor also may be inclined to state suppositions as if they were already proved. If Igor can refrain from such inflation of language which can easily be percieved as incivility in the heat of the moment, then Igor's concerns may be able to be addressed. The other user should not be the subject of incivility from Igor. There seems to be a need for further processes to proceed however. And hopefully Igor can come to understand how to engage in discussion with a user if possible, rather than rushing to judgement. That is my understanding, I just happened to have found this thread, though I have not been involved. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• His last comment directed at me: "Sorry the current version looks like shit. Definiton this definiton that, la, la , la, blah, blah , blah! Get it together and make an article, not a dictionary definion as it looks now that it have become!" [54]. It's not that any one comment is extreme. He's not abusive. It just disrupts the consensus process by never stopping, and there's a red flag when he takes it to other articles.
• I requested informal mediation for the anti-Americanism article, but I'm not optimistic. Right now, people are trying to en masse revert every edit that's been made in the last week.
• The acronyms are confusing. Using the Help Page search told me what SSP means, but returned no results for RFCU. Life.temp (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Berger, Igor the Troll...

• Igor apparently trolls as a hobby. He has a Web site and a blog dedicated to blogging about his well-spent time in troll-dom: http://www.igorthetroll.com/
• The "About Me" link identifies him as Igor Berger: http://www.igorthetroll.com/i-am-igor-the-troll.php
• The"My Company" link contains the same profile as his Talk page, and includes Wikipedia as a "project.": http://www.ivbsolutions.net/

Ban please. Life.temp (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, this and an editor named John Gohde are hot topics in the blogosphere....
• http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/
• Somebody put this guy on a gerbil treadmill and use the energy for something useful. He's probably User talk:ArthurMongli too.

Life.temp (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he describes himself pretty accurately on his website: "a really nice troll". Well, nice as long as you tolerate his trolling. If you express any discontentment, he bites. He seems to talk incessantly regardless of whether he knows what he's saying or even has anything to say. This is probably the one individual at Wikipedia who can influence what I do here, in that I've come to avoid anything he's involved in. He's just that difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should all be allowed to give him the inattention he deserves. Ban. One more then I quit wasting time with trolls...

In his profile at another site, he lists his contributions to Wikipedia under the heading "Internet Troll.":

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger

Life.temp (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaks for itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of Life.temp sockpuppeting needs to be dealt with at the same time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). He appeared on Anti-Americanism just after the last sock was shown the door and has shown much the same tendencies. Marskell (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of us have reason to believe that 'Life.temp' is yet another incarnation of the banned user Bsarvy, aka 'Rachel', aka 'Bshanvy'. After Bsharvy was banned he vowed on the Anti-Americanism page to come back to edit the page using different identities and so far he has been as good as his word. About every week at Anti-Americanism we get a brand new user editor who homes straight onto that page and who despite being new always displays an in depth knowledge of wikipedia procedures, and is especially adept at launching complaints procedures against anybody who opposes his edits - like what we see here. Bsharvy edits from Seoul, Korea and I have no doubt that 'Life temp' is from the same exactly the same place. Ask him. Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of us" who have the suspicion strangely seem to consist only of those who've been in disagreement with him at Talk:Anti-Americanism.

For the record though, I have the same suspicions, I just doubt the existence of any actual evidence, or the need to devote any energy to the pursuit of this suspicion. Life.temp hasn't actually done anything wrong yet, aside from disagree with Marskell, which as you can see from Talk:Anti-Americanism is not a good idea. Life.temp revert-warred with Igor a bit, but that seems to have been a one-time thing. This seems to have more to do with him being in disagreement with the majority there, than with the compulsion to be ever-vigilante in prosecuting sockpuppets of blocked users. He hasn't actually done anything wrong yet. He's not even being disruptive, unless being in vocal disagreement with the majority counts, and it doesn't.

Anyway, whether Life.temp is a sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that this is a circumstantial suspicion, and Igor should be keeping the suspected sockpuppet discussion to the suspected sockpuppet page, not following the user around reminding people of the suspicion at every turn. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

Igor mainatins a hitlist of Wikipedia editors at the londonfetishscene.com site I mentioned earlier:

BuzzKill

1. DogMeat WikiPedia:User:Gohdeilocks
   
2. RoadKill momojp
   
3. Marked for Tribunal for the crimes
   

   of: insighting discontent and instigating a mutiny WikiPedia:User:Equazcion
   

   As the court appointed counslor for the Queen, Country, and God, I recommend WikiPedia:WP:CSD pardoned

4. Marked for Assassination for being a Spam Malware to the Kabal

   WikiPedia:User:Mr.Z-man decreed by Grand Pupa. pardoned

5. WikiPedia:User:WilyD subversive and destructive to WikiPedia. WikiPedia:WP:COI
6. WikiPedia:User:VirtualSteve sleeper.

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill

I wonder what the admins are doing... The only admin I can see is User:Marskell, and he seems to think this page is for sniping at me over a SSP Igor (who else?) filed against me. It's a case without a single diff, and barely any claim that I disrupted anything. User:Marskell has made no comment there, where such comment belongs. I'd like to know policy about a user who brags about trolling and who calls User:Mr.Z-man "marked for assasination." That's what this discussion is for. Life.temp (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would be curious to know why I'm on this guy's shit list. He links to the Wipipedia page on his userpage here, so they would seem to be the same guy ... WilyD 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That page looks like a joke to me. I shall ask him to add me to it. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is a joke. If you mean he probably hasn't actually hired Jason Bourne to kill User:Mr.Z-man, I agree. The point is that he comes to troll, and says so. (Additional comment: some editors will feel intimidated if they find themselves on that list.) Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see today that I am also on this list - this is because I have often questioned Igorberger's edits and I have had the audacity to block him for his foul play previously. Interestingly - for those that feel the need to assume good faith under any circumstance - actually checking through all of Igorberger's editing history will reveal that he has been questioned, warned and blocked by many, many other editors for his consistent trolling, his tenacious editing style, his blatant refactoring, his conflict of interest edits, his attempts to use the wikipedia name to further his personal businesses and his intimidation of other editors. His edits have been taken to task many times at ANI, MFD, and of course on his talk page. Igorberger uses the same methods for this always - simply substituting the name of his latest out of favour editor or administrator into his usual nonsensical diatribe. He then curries favour with other editors who through lack of time, interest or vanity support him because he called them his "brother" or "a good man" etc on their talk page. For those that feel the need to support - that is a matter for you to deal with, however trolling at this level is not a joke whether it is on wikipedia or off it. That said Igorberger knows that I am never intimidated by him and that I will as necessary block him again - and for considerable length of time if he steps over the line in the future - and I am not involved in that matter. For this matter - another administrator should act appropriately and quickly to again rein in this very poor representative of the wikipedia community who feels the need to belittle and user name/shame his fellow contributors.--VS ^talk 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban

I was || this close this blocking this guy indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of long-term trolling has no place on our 'pedia. But I want to make sure it has consensus, so, what are your thoughts? Grandmasterka 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not neutral on this, as he and I chat on my talk page. I've seen him do disruptive things, but don't follow him around, so I evidently don't know the worst of it, but he's always seemed basically OK to me. He appears to contribute at least semi-productively at, for example, State terrorism and the United States (I don't follow that article much, so I can't quantify it more than that, but he seems to be working with other editors there).

If I was to talk with him about his future here, as someone he seems to respect, what would you like me to say beyond:

1. removing lists of WP users from his off-wiki page,
2. letting the SSP run its course without following life.temp around,
3. perhaps some kind of mentorship (if he's open to it, which I suspect, but don't know, he might be open to).

Again, I haven't followed his every move, but from what I know of him, the descriptions above seem a little too harsh, and (again acknowledging my COI here), indef blocking seems like too much. --barneca (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, Igor and I have gotten along in our interactions but I had grown rather wary, since although we tended to agree more or less on edits, I never seemed to agree with the unencyclopedic reasons he gave for agreeing with me (so I began thinking it might only be luck). Igor's behaviour as outlined above, about which I became aware only lately, is utterly blockable. However, the other day, he seemed to take my thoughts on his uncivil comments about others to heart. Hence, I strongly hope Igor at least shares his thoughts about his own behaviour before someone drops an indef block upon him. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Barneca & Gwen - not to throw water on your (and indeed our) general AGF principles but Barneca, Igor has been through this process of requesting he listen to someone he respects before. He has a history of jumping from one person he respects to another. See here for example his last ANI thread Gwen his "point taken" comment (like the one you diff) are exactly what he does every time he gets into hot water like this - for example this one where he apologises for being dickish after appearing to post an incorrect signature, or this one where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. Given that I have been watching his history for some months I hope you will understand why I support absolutely an indefinite block ... and if I was not attempting to remain non-proprietary at this time because he has slightly involved me in this issue by including my name in a rather cowardly off-wiki attack - I would do it myself.--VS ^talk 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I understand why I'd gotten wary. I see strong support here that Igor knows he's using this account for something other than building an encyclopeda. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VS's take on this. Igor tends to act as if he respects someone and is taking in their advice, but when it comes to practice he ignores it. Then, if pressed, he bites back. Just like everyone thinks when they first encounter him I used to believe that Igor genuinely wanted to be mentored, but I no longer hold that belief. I think he's going to keep on doing what he does despite what anyone tells him. He's not interested in changing -- but he will act like he is, just to get on people's good sides. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent summary of my experience with this editor. Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do it. We don't need to subject good-faith contributors to this nonsense any longer. Some people are here to write, others notso much. --Haemo (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone done an Rfc then, (on Igor)? Wouldn't that be a reasonable procedure, and require two (2) users to endorse it, that they had tried and failed to resolve particular issues. (Not for or against, if there is evidence of particular transgressions that other editors wish to pursue.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Why in heavens name would be doing a request for comment? This is the appropriate procedure for transgressions to be considered and dealt with by Administrators--VS ^talk 10:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor said something yesterday that implied he wasn't going to participate in "life.temp's thread". If true, he may not know an indef block is being considered; I've notified him that he might want to say something here. How he handles that response will strongly affect my own opinion on whether this is the correct thing to do. Like I said, I haven't been following his every move, so it's possible the "mild" disruption I've seen myself has actually been significantly more. But based on my interaction with him, I'm just surprised. --barneca (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me, but I'm just seeing someone frustrated, who wants to call a spade a spade but feels he is prevented from doing so by the bureaucracy here (don't deny it...we all know it is overwhelming for newcomers). I would like to see an RFC, with specific issues raised (and hopefully dealt with, if he can be convinced to participate in good faith) before the banhammer is applied. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy nicknamed himself "Igor the Troll." He registered igorthetroll.com. He keeps a list of articles he's edited titled "Internet Trolling." And here we are trying to figure out if he is a troll. I mean...gee. Life.temp (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wants to call a spade a spade? What does he want to say that he's been prevented from saying? Igor's behavior hasn't exactly struck me as reserved. From what I've seen he's been rather open, and overly so.

• You're missing the point. This user has been given constructive criticism before. It's no longer a matter of identifying the problematic behavior and communicating it to him. That's been tried many times, by many different people, many of whom Igor thanked and came back to with further questions and praise. But all the while he never actually took any of the advice he was given. If you started an RFC for Igor, he'd say he's sorry a few times and tell everyone how much he appreciates their help, and then keep on doing what he does. More dispute resolution would just delay the inevitable. Igor has been the subject of extensive community discussion before, and he's been given advice, warnings, and finally ultimatums as a result. It's all been done. There's no reason reason to go through it all over again expecting different results.

• Besides which, an RFC, being a "request for comment", would be redundant with this discussion. We've got all the comments we need right here. Whether this discussion were carried out at ANI or RFC makes no difference, and this one is already started, so there's no point in beginning anew. If you have thoughts about Igor that you would have expressed at RfC, please feel free to state them here. It's all pretty much the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:41, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly stated - Equazcion - Of course one of the problems is that only those editors that have spent time over many months trying to understand and assist Igor actually have the background to know what damage he is doing to the project. To see that damage extending to off-wiki sites compounds the evidence. Quite frankly drive by comments from editors that have not experienced this editor's real reason for being here or who have not checked through all or at least a large quantity of his edits are not of any assistance because this is the very game that Igor hopes the community will play on his behalf.--VS ^talk 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, comments from "outsiders" is pretty much the point of WP:ANI. Otherwise it's just a big self-reinforcing echo chamber. --barneca (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it was not my suggestion to not allow "outsider" comments Barneca - it was my suggestion to editors not to comment unless that editor had made him/herself very familiar with Igor's editing history. I think you actually were the first above to suggest similarly that such a lack of familiarity makes any comment less than complete?--VS ^talk 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from outsiders are appreciated, but educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful. There are some cases at ANI that are glaringly obvious to "outsiders" and therefore might not require such an in-depth look. This unfortunately isn't one of them. The fact that this user acts so outwardly-agreeable is part of the point here. Drive-by commenters who don't look any deeper than that and come to the obvious conclusion that this is a misunderstood soul looking to reach out to someone are just perpetuating the very problem we're attempting to address. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:08, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor's been up on AN/I before, and I've commented on him before. Equazcion has it about right. Igor plays games. I'm one in the 'supports a community ban' column. ThuranX (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from this mess at ANI, because I do not think it is the right place to address all these issues, but I was requested to comment here. A lot of these has been started because the article anti-Americanism, but some of it goes back even before this article. Who is right and who is worng and why who did what is not a simple thing to address. I really feel ANI, fuels drama, and no good to Wikipedia project and all its editors. I feel all the conserns need to be addressed in proper venues of dispute resolution. Igor Berger (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, none of this has anything to do with content dispute resolution and it seems to have been going on for much longer than since you began editing anti-Americanism. Either way, I don't understand why you're not responding to all these things being said about you. Have you given this any thought? Is there anything you can do to skirt stirring up these kinds of complaints about your behaviour from now on? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I think ANI is the wrong place to address these conserns. Why has this escalated to this wikidrama in the first place? Could it be that dispute resolutions raised by me about editors and editors conserned with me were not addressed in proper dispute resolution venues? But yes, with regards to your consern, I will do my best not to flame the situation and be extremly civil in talking to other editors to address any problems that I or they may have. Igor Berger (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug. Also right now there are no WP:DIFFs but just accusations. I prefer to address all accusations in a more humane - stable - not flamed - atmosphere like RFC/U Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There many diffs to your edits in this thread. Why did you say there aren't any? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ok, not to rehash every thing from scratch and go into a circular debate, what in particular would you like me to address? Igor Berger (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you refering to the 3 points that admin Barneca raised, I agree to all 3 of them. Igor Berger (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about the diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel the case for harassment of User:Life.temp has not been made. I filled an SSP report on him and Wiki-Etiquettes report. Because I found his behavior on article anti-Americanism problematic. I even came to you to ask for help because I could not get anyone to addres the issue accept of the editors involved in editing the article anti-Americanism. But those editor were having the same problem with the editor. We have all tried to talk to the editor about AA but he is taking it all as personal. If he feels that I have harassed him in anyway, I would like to apoligize to him for that. We are not here, to push anyone off the project. Like it says, "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Igor Berger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I've asked you twice why you said "right now there are no WP:DIFFs" in this thread when in truth there are many. Twice you haven't answered me. Instead, you've made non specific agreements and apologies with no reasoning or acknowledgement behind them to show you have any understanding of others' worries or a wish to follow up on them by swaying your behaviour. This is spot on the kind of thing these editors have been unhappy about with you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my POV that the diffs to Lifi.temp harassment acquisitions have not been provided. But everyone has there own POV. Were the diffs supporting my behavior which is disapproved by some editor provided? I do not know, I was not referring to that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take these answers as an acknowledgement that you didn't bother to read this thread before replying to it? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the first part, dealing with acquisitions of harassment, the other part I did not read in full. It is a bit hard to read this long thread. That is why I proposed to address in RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Anyway, I like to apologize to any editor who thinks my behavior is not appropreate.I do not wish the community to see me in bad light. Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you apologizing for? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If some editors feel my behavior is not appropriate I need to respect what they saying and not beat the dead horse trying to prove them wrong. If editors have consern about another editor's behavior that editor needs to think why they have consern and try to fix that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment My take is that Igor would like to get along with what he's been doing (and hopes any other editors will "think why they have consern [sic] and try to fix that"). I think one "fix" might be a preventative block until Igor is more willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It remains the case that I'm interested to know why/how I'm in a conflict with this user (as he seems to think). WilyD 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wily, my apology to you for ever putting you on that list. We never had any contact between each other. I am trully sorry for atracting any negative attention to you. Igor Berger (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor why did you put him on an off-wiki hate-list when you'd never even had contact with him? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was because of a comment I read. The whole list is childish and stupid on my part. It is a disgrace to me and to Wikipedia. I created this list when I first started editing regularly Wikipedia and since then I have learned a lot about Wikipedia. And have had myself put on sily lists. I apologize to all editors who I have put on the list. I think any list talking about Wikipedians are bad taste and immature. Igor Berger (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Why is it still up? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) It's on a wiki, right? You could just delete it right now if you wanted to, right? That would be an excellent move; not to escape consequences, but because having that list is wrong, and not wise. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not want it to look like I am trying to hide something and refactor to make myself look good! I did a bad thing and I will remove it right now. Igor Berger (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed everyone from the list. Igor Berger (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Igor, but I'm starting to think that Gwen's "take" on this a little up the page might make sense. An indef block, not the "infinite" kind but the "until you're unblocked" kind, might make sense, where "out of the spotlight" (to use Igor's phrase), on his talk page, we can clarify what concerns really have to be addressed before unblocking. "willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for", as it were. This solution, I would grudgingly support. A "ban", no. To me, a ban implies someone isn't welcome. I think Igor is welcome if he alters his behavior.

But in any case I think at this stage an RfC is going to turn into a mirror of this thread, and I don't think it's the solution. let's deal with it here and now. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I am not trying to shrug my responsibility or say my behavior is good. But when someone comes and say your behavior is bad, it is hard to understand what is bad, unless you say. Igor this is bad, please correct it. Then I know what I need to fix. Like when I was asked not to post at ANI for 30 days, even after the 30 days I have not posted unless it is conserns me. So I do not close my ears, and think I know it all. I listen to my peers when they advise me and talk to me, instead of saying, "bad Igor" Igor Berger (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part deux

This kind of exchange is part of the problem. It doesn't get anywhere, because Igor isn't giving any actual answers. Take this sample from above:

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug." Igor berger

When you ask Igor to address something, he responds (if these can be called responses) by throwing around common phrases, big words, and most of all, policy abbreviations, most of which don't even apply to the current situation. "Neutral point of view" is about writing articles, and has nothing to do with discussions. On the contrary, everyone is encouraged to express their POVs during a discussion. That would be true no matter where it took place. ANI is just a venue. It doesn't cause any more drama than any other place. Talk here, Igor, because this is where the discussion began. It would be the same discussion, inducing the same level of "psychological health" and equally "addressing editors' concerns" no matter where it took place. A discussion likewise does not "sweep things under the rug" -- it of course does the opposite of that, airing things out in the open -- and again, the venue in which it takes place does not determine its level of under-rug sweepage. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:06, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am welcome to a discussion no matter where it takes place. I am glad you want to discuss thing with me. And have always welcomed it at my talk page. Please tell me one point at a time what is it about my behavior as a Wikipedia editor that conserns you. Igor Berger (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer completely separately from Gwen's question: Igor, are you willing to accept a mentor assigned by the community - yes or no? Franamax (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did try to keep this separate, guys, and in deference to Gwen's question. Since both have been artfully-replied-to, I'll ask mine again: community appoints mentor, Igor accepts, one more chance; community declines or Igor declines or mentorship fails, Igor faces a ban. Has this actually been tried? Can the previous mentor please comment? This is the last step before a ban and should have one spin around the block. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather hear an answer to Gwen's question. Igor has always been outwardly willing to accept mentorship from the community -- he's had an adoption userbox posted on his userpage for as long as I can remember -- but mentoring has been tried and has never solved anything, as has been described repeatedly and at length above. Gwen is steering this in the right direction. Her question addresses the issue head-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:00, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that the mentorship issue has been addressed by Igor before who has been asking to be both an adopter and adoptee for many months (he considered himself a senior editor from very early in his wiki involvement), but when a well meaning senior editor tried to assist by pointing out the illogical nature of this Igor attacked him for trolling.--VS ^talk 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to accept mentor, and I was hoping to get one long time ago. I have a user box saying user looking to be atopted. I think I found an experience admin editor who might be interested in mentoring me. I would need to talk to him about this. Now the hard part, Gwen's question. Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. As you are aware, I came to you asking for advice on anti-Americanism but you really never talked to me. So I just kep adding what I though were problems to that section on your talk page but never got a definitive recommendation. Pretty much I had to read your mind, and guess as to what to do based on your actions on anti-Americanism article. Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor, why do you also then have a user box that indicates your belief that you are also a senior editor?--VS ^talk

This user has been given constructive criticism before. -- actually have the background to know what damage he is doing -- very familiar with Igor's editing history. -- Educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful.

How about some [[DIFFs] (of Igor's bad contribbs. to articles, etc. in this discussion, before blocking/banning is enacted, please. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]Have a look at the diffs that are provided already Newbyguesses - from the most recent that I just gave through to his last ANI and then the one above where I linked to where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. That will give you a start.--VS ^talk 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, this edit as of 13:40, 22 November 2007 to Igor's User page was not good, [55], (added experienced wikipedian), and this Diff [56] was problematical also, (in user:space). --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding both user boxes of looking to be adopted and wanting to adopt was and is, that I need help, but no one came to adopt me; Why I want to adopt other users, is because I do know something and maybe able to help other users. Igor Berger (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part trois

Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?--VS ^talk 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor you have just added to Equazcion that Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. however when editor MKoltnow provided you with a very very detailed explanation of exactly what you were doing wrong - you did not seem to adjust your editing style in anyway. How do you explain that?--VS ^talk 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well it was a good evaluation and I thanked the editor. But he did not come around to help me work with the problems. If he would have gave me one point at a time a discuss that point with me, maybe I could have fixed the problem. But he brought me a full plate and it was hard to digest. Igor Berger (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• To respond to the anti-americanism comment, Igor, I didn't respond to you because I along with EL_C had previously asked that you not go around like a messenger, delivering news to people on what's going on at articles -- which you seemed to agree to stop doing at the time, but then you continued. So I wasn't going to encourage that practice by responding. I did attempt to help out with the dispute at the anti-Americanism article though -- and all the while you kept on posting news about it on my talk page. Please don't dwell on this though -- answer VS's concerns now. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

An individual named "Igor the Troll" started a Google Groups thread called WikiPedia has undercover FBI and CIA agents as editors because he was blocked for 31 hours. This was right after VirtualSteve blocked Igor for 31 hours. Text of message: I was recently attacked and blocked from editing for 31 hours because I added a video link about Prescott Bush the gradfather of George W. Bush being pro Hitler and anti FDR. Does this seem like a thread started by someone interested being mentored? Life.temp (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got enough evidence of off-wiki attacks as a result of blocks. Thanks Life.temp, but dwelling on these is not constructive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:10, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation - I brought up the question of community-appointed mentorship, it's yes or no and needs no comment. VS' original question is now being obscured:

"Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?" Franamax (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

community-appointed mentorship yes Gwen question, I thought I answered it. Can you guide me a bit what I missed. Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did answer:

Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I said:

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future?

So let's start from there. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

To restate it for convenience: Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale Equazcion •✗/C • 23:18, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• and this relates to Gwen's second question as above Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? --VS ^talk 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Makes sence with refernces to WP:Social engineering Internet essay that I wrote. Yes it makes me look foolish. Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a detailed answer to this whole question Igor! Can I ask that everyone sits back now to wait for a few minutes for Igor's answer before adding any more questions or comments, please--VS ^talk 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)(ec) Yes I can. When dealing with direct question, I can answer them. But if you just put 10 questions to me and do not come back to talk about them, how I suppose to respond to you? Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)Can you in your own words ask me the question? Because I thought I answered it to Gwen. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Igor. Y'all, don't you see what's happening here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do Gwen and I have seen it countless times before - do we really need any more discussion - I have much better things to do on Wiki?--VS ^talk 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm getting that deja-vu-all-over-again feeling too. No, we don't need any more discussion. I believe the time has come to act. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Ban, the shitlist is the straw that convinces me he's not here to be constructive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Having followed this since early January, this is a very intelligent guy who either doesn't get it; adapts slowly; or has a very clear and amusing plan. Either last-chance mentorship by someone who won't tolerate obfuscation, or ban. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• So that my opinion is clear - and also as having been following the progress of this editor for months - Ban.--VS ^talk 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I regretfully believe it's time for an indef block for disruptive behavior, with the continuing possiblity of discussion on their talk page. A "ban", implying not even being able to edit their own talk page and being, in a sense, persona non grata, is something I continue to strongly oppose. --barneca (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that an indef-block would likely only be lifted with an agreement to mentorship, are you willing to assume that role? Franamax (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a giant "I told you so" from many people here doen the line, yes. If Igor is blocked, as long as he is not also unreasonably prevented from editing his own talk page, I'll try to mentor him there. If I feel we've reached a point where returning to Wikipedia editing would be productive, I'll bring it up at WP:ANI. If I ever reach a point where I don't think my time is being spent productively, then I'll quit, and unless he can find someone else, he'll be effectively banned. Igor has accepted the idea of a mentorship arrangement on my talk page: [57]. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Barneca's willing to try, I support his suggestion of mentoring Igor on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any progress in this user since the first similar ANI thread. Instead I see the same behavior repeated over and over again. Mentorship and further discussion would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would just give this user a further forum to do what he does -- drag out painful and dramatic discussions until everyone loses interest. I'm quite certain my opinion is already clear, but I haven't actually said the word yet, so ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• BanBlock indef for disruption, with mentoring on talk page. This user's edit history and his answers in the above thread give me no hint a mentor would be of any help. However, Barneca has said he is willing to try. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Equazcion's attitude is plain, and obviously reasonable, since Equazcion has previously spent considerable effort in attempting to solve the problem there is with Igor, and their communications. 10 Apr 2008 (UTC). If User:Igorberger is "blocked", that is not a "ban". I haven't been on Igor's talkpage, though Igor has messaged to user talk:newbyguesses, about wikipedia:essays, not articles. I do not know the extent (it was mentioned) or background nor a lot of the details of Igor's accusations about the other user, subject to the original wikiquette alert by Igor which started off this AN/I thread. I think Igor can contribute productively, maybe a shortish "block", with continued clue-ing on the talk-page, is the best option at this time, though (I am not an admin) I wouldn't do it, apologies to those Users whose opinions differ. --NewbyG (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay I can see the merit of an indefinite block and some considerable question and answer tutelage under Barneca's guidance where Igor can only edit his talk page until Barneca is as absolutely certain as he can be that Igor is going to edit appropriately. Also because Barneca will in effect be the only one to unblock - I am willing to block indefinitely now (because this will be a consensus decision and thus there should be no concern over COI by my doing so. If I get a couple of agreements I will act now - thoughts please?--VS ^talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Normally COI would be an issue, but consensus here is nearly unanimous, seems silly to wait patiently for some other admin to come along. --barneca (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been endorsing a ban for a while here. Someone just do it already. --Haemo (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I think we're talking now about the anonymous editor above offering to indef-block and Barneca is the soft-hearted potential sucker on the line? Agree to that. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do it now, I don't think anyone will make much of a fuss so long as he's blocked and Barneca's watching his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• And now done folks - a big thanks to Barneca for putting his time and energy on the line, and a big hope that Igor will actually use this opportunity.--VS ^talk 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gulp. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barneca, I'm impressed that someone went for my last-ditch argument. Read the history carefully and watch out, but all power to you, save a good one for the team if you can! :) Franamax (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threat by User:SeattleJoe

SeattleJoe has just posted this and this, targeting myself and ErgoSum88 over edits made to the Incest article.

I think these warnings are wholly unacceptable; threatening to 'call the cops' on editors you disagree with is practically a legal threat. I don't appreciate being compared to a child molester, either. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He states, in a admittedly very melodramatic way "If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops." Well, I trust that the "if anyone description doesn't apply to anyone. Factually, such acts are normally criminal, and abusive. Who'd argue otherwise, that wasn't here to troll or advocate fringe nonsense? Too hypothetical to be a real threat. But he should calm down.--Doc^g 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I initially blocked based on the diffs, but reversed myself and am engaging in dialogue. I read it as a threat of police action; I'll watch his reaction. Hopefully this doesn't open a can. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of getting a little over-passionate about the topic for one reason or another. It's easy to do, and doesn't really warrent a block, and even if a block was place, it shouldn't be a long one. See if calms down first, and see how he interects before thinking about blocks. A caution wouldn't go amiss though. Lradrama 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A little over-passionate is an understatement. A simple look at this editor's contribution history shows he or she is pushing a POV and does not wish to back down. Not only is SeattleJoe trying to own the Incest article, as seen here and here, but this user has clearly issued a legal threat (in addition to attempting to dictate to others how to edit) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd say a block, or at least a strong censure, is more than warranted. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself but see someone beat me to it. SeattleJoe has clearly violated WP policies against making legal threats. He's also openly stated on the talk page at Incest that he will make changes to the article whether anyone likes them or not and pretty much promised that he would edit war if anyone changed it back. He told people to "go fuck themselves", he;s violating WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, etc. WP is not therapy. This person shows no sign of listening to anyone outside of his shrill soapboxing and deserves to be blocked. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on the user's talk page seems to show that the user is convinced (and quite paranoid) that people are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse". I don't know where he got this from but it's ludicrous, absurd, not based in fact and whatever other fancy terms I can come up with that mean WRONG. And he doesn't show any sign of letting go of it. As noted at the top, I also do not appreciate being compared to a child molestor just because of style disagreements. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this thread and I think the user has all the signs of a fixated SPA with who-knows-what in his thoughts. The notion users are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse" is codswallop. The threat to call the police if he sees any text he doesn't like is more or less hollow but will have a chilling effect on any general interest editor's willingness to put up with such disruption in discussions and editing. After some thought, unless he can be reasoned with (which may not be too likely), I would call for a block, for both the legal threat (which could easily turn into some kind of general threat of civil action) and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That analysis seems dead on, and I too would support a block should the user not readily demonstrate himself to be willing to comport his editing with our conduct policies and practices. Joe 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not every "threat" involving the law is a blockable legal threat.

• "If you post text-X I will sue you" is a clear legal threat, blockable per WP:LEGAL
• "If you threaten violent-act-Y I will report you to the police" is not a blockable legal threat, indeed it is the recommended course of action according to WP:VIOLENCE.
• "If you commit crime-Z I will report you to the police" is not a legal threat at all; it is an affirmation of responsible citizenship.
• "If you post text-X I will report you to the police" is what SeattleJoe actually said. It's somewhere in the middle. If he sees the act of posting the contentious material as being criminal, of course he would feel justified in calling the police. This isn't a matter for blocking, but for discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The worry would be, it seems likely he'll read something worded in a way he doesn't like and go on about it. Reporting a crime (or advocacy of a crime) to the police is a given, there's no need to specifiy it on a talk page, that's disruption. It's like announcing on a talk page, "If any editor here reveals, or attempts to reveal, any identifying personal information about me, I'll call the police, call their ISP, post it to ANI and have them blocked." Un-needed, unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked SeattleJoe for making the same type of post after I had told him in no uncertain terms not to and for promising to war over it if it were removed. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; even if it doesn't entail legal problems, even if it isn't intended to produce a chilling effect, it's still tendentious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just posted a long screed on his userpage, announcing that he's reported us all to the FBI and warning us to purge the kiddie porn from our hard drives and then discard them to avoid prosecution. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all of us, he didn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, might it be time to lock down his page and stop feeding him? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was locked last night [58], and trimmed [59] of troll-bait just a couple of minutes after Orangemike posted his message here. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected last night for a different reason - see below. I have full-protected it; he's just blown any chance at returning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamlin Hodgkinson (talk · contribs)

This guy has been doing nothing but making nonsense edits on talk pages. Looks like blog comment spam, but without any links.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Might this be related to the discussion here? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll. Should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger harrassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Igorberger blocked indefinitely as per community consensus - with provisions made for Barneca to mentor and if Igorberger reaches a point where he appears to be ready to re-join the community - Barneca to put in a suggestion of his unblocking at a new ANI thread

--VS ^talk 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Igorberger is harrassing me.

Most of his dislike for me stems from disputes in Talk:Anti-Americanism. The problem is that recently he has taken his "battle" to other articles. He is obviously checking my contribs and following me around to get involved with whatever I do.

At the Village Pump, I proposed a general policy that anti-[nation] articles follow the naming convention (identity), e.g. only self-identified anti-Americans should be called anti-American. [60] He made no contribution there, but announced (dishonestly) in anti-Americanism Talk page that I wanted to delete all these articles [61].

Then he took the issue to the Talk page of an article I've never read, edited, or discussed, and used the same technique to rabble-rouse against me. He told editors there, none of whom I know, to watch out for me. Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#All_anti-country_articles_are_POV. Again, he misrepresents (can I say "lies about"?) what I said (I haven't said anything should be deleted).

I recently made a small edit to the article on Phillip K. Dick. Within hours Igor showed up, and started editing that article, including reverting my edits. [62]

He filed a sockpuppetry case on me, in which he compares me to Hitler, with a The Final Solution reference (it is hard to follow): [63]

In the anti-Americanism article itself, his comments toward me are always dismissive and often personal. I would ignore them, but when he follows me around to other articles, it becomes impossible to ignore.

Here he says he can't assume good faith because I am "trying to influence and change Wikipedia policy." [64] He also doesn't refer to me by name but by as "the SSP & SPA" I don't even know what SSP means (I'm sure it's not good) but I think SPA is single-purpose account.

Here he continues belittling me: [65]

Here he belittles my attempt to explain my position: [66]

More dismissive comments: [67]

There is more, but I won't go on. The main problem is that I cannot ignore him, because he has decided to follow me around Wikipedia. Life.temp (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, back when Life.temp started the Village Pump discussion, Igor advised people to consider Life.temp's status as an "SPA" before considering his suggestions [68]. I had reverted that comment on the grounds that it was harassment [69], to which Igor responded by leaving me this [70] on my talk page. I then responded on his talk page [71]. I've had my own long-term problems with Igor and short of blocking him for being a general nuisance, we should at least make sure he doesn't engage in blatant harassment. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:29, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has just posted a Wikiquette Alert for Life.temp: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Life.temp. This was done after he was notified of this ANI. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 13 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor has always been a "problem" editor, and he's got into bother before but this is too far, following someone around harrrasing them is wikistalking--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and he was been warned far too many times. Tiptoety ^talk 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to wait until the RFCU is processed. Life.temp is certainly displaying a lot of well known sockpuppet tendencies. Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(From my entirely civil interactions with) User:Igorberger, they can be difficult to understand at times. From other observations I have made (concerning previous posts to this page), this can be a problem. And Igor also may be inclined to state suppositions as if they were already proved. If Igor can refrain from such inflation of language which can easily be percieved as incivility in the heat of the moment, then Igor's concerns may be able to be addressed. The other user should not be the subject of incivility from Igor. There seems to be a need for further processes to proceed however. And hopefully Igor can come to understand how to engage in discussion with a user if possible, rather than rushing to judgement. That is my understanding, I just happened to have found this thread, though I have not been involved. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• His last comment directed at me: "Sorry the current version looks like shit. Definiton this definiton that, la, la , la, blah, blah , blah! Get it together and make an article, not a dictionary definion as it looks now that it have become!" [72]. It's not that any one comment is extreme. He's not abusive. It just disrupts the consensus process by never stopping, and there's a red flag when he takes it to other articles.
• I requested informal mediation for the anti-Americanism article, but I'm not optimistic. Right now, people are trying to en masse revert every edit that's been made in the last week.
• The acronyms are confusing. Using the Help Page search told me what SSP means, but returned no results for RFCU. Life.temp (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor Berger, Igor the Troll...

• Igor apparently trolls as a hobby. He has a Web site and a blog dedicated to blogging about his well-spent time in troll-dom: http://www.igorthetroll.com/
• The "About Me" link identifies him as Igor Berger: http://www.igorthetroll.com/i-am-igor-the-troll.php
• The"My Company" link contains the same profile as his Talk page, and includes Wikipedia as a "project.": http://www.ivbsolutions.net/

Ban please. Life.temp (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, this and an editor named John Gohde are hot topics in the blogosphere....
• http://naturalhealthperspective.net/2008/01/26/gohdes-apprentice/
• Somebody put this guy on a gerbil treadmill and use the energy for something useful. He's probably User talk:ArthurMongli too.

Life.temp (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say he describes himself pretty accurately on his website: "a really nice troll". Well, nice as long as you tolerate his trolling. If you express any discontentment, he bites. He seems to talk incessantly regardless of whether he knows what he's saying or even has anything to say. This is probably the one individual at Wikipedia who can influence what I do here, in that I've come to avoid anything he's involved in. He's just that difficult. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should all be allowed to give him the inattention he deserves. Ban. One more then I quit wasting time with trolls...

In his profile at another site, he lists his contributions to Wikipedia under the heading "Internet Troll.":

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger

Life.temp (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaks for itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of Life.temp sockpuppeting needs to be dealt with at the same time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). He appeared on Anti-Americanism just after the last sock was shown the door and has shown much the same tendencies. Marskell (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of us have reason to believe that 'Life.temp' is yet another incarnation of the banned user Bsarvy, aka 'Rachel', aka 'Bshanvy'. After Bsharvy was banned he vowed on the Anti-Americanism page to come back to edit the page using different identities and so far he has been as good as his word. About every week at Anti-Americanism we get a brand new user editor who homes straight onto that page and who despite being new always displays an in depth knowledge of wikipedia procedures, and is especially adept at launching complaints procedures against anybody who opposes his edits - like what we see here. Bsharvy edits from Seoul, Korea and I have no doubt that 'Life temp' is from the same exactly the same place. Ask him. Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of us" who have the suspicion strangely seem to consist only of those who've been in disagreement with him at Talk:Anti-Americanism.

For the record though, I have the same suspicions, I just doubt the existence of any actual evidence, or the need to devote any energy to the pursuit of this suspicion. Life.temp hasn't actually done anything wrong yet, aside from disagree with Marskell, which as you can see from Talk:Anti-Americanism is not a good idea. Life.temp revert-warred with Igor a bit, but that seems to have been a one-time thing. This seems to have more to do with him being in disagreement with the majority there, than with the compulsion to be ever-vigilante in prosecuting sockpuppets of blocked users. He hasn't actually done anything wrong yet. He's not even being disruptive, unless being in vocal disagreement with the majority counts, and it doesn't.

Anyway, whether Life.temp is a sockpuppet or not, the fact remains that this is a circumstantial suspicion, and Igor should be keeping the suspected sockpuppet discussion to the suspected sockpuppet page, not following the user around reminding people of the suspicion at every turn. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

Igor mainatins a hitlist of Wikipedia editors at the londonfetishscene.com site I mentioned earlier:

BuzzKill

1. DogMeat WikiPedia:User:Gohdeilocks
   
2. RoadKill momojp
   
3. Marked for Tribunal for the crimes
   

   of: insighting discontent and instigating a mutiny WikiPedia:User:Equazcion
   

   As the court appointed counslor for the Queen, Country, and God, I recommend WikiPedia:WP:CSD pardoned

4. Marked for Assassination for being a Spam Malware to the Kabal

   WikiPedia:User:Mr.Z-man decreed by Grand Pupa. pardoned

5. WikiPedia:User:WilyD subversive and destructive to WikiPedia. WikiPedia:WP:COI
6. WikiPedia:User:VirtualSteve sleeper.

http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/User:Igorberger#BuzzKill

I wonder what the admins are doing... The only admin I can see is User:Marskell, and he seems to think this page is for sniping at me over a SSP Igor (who else?) filed against me. It's a case without a single diff, and barely any claim that I disrupted anything. User:Marskell has made no comment there, where such comment belongs. I'd like to know policy about a user who brags about trolling and who calls User:Mr.Z-man "marked for assasination." That's what this discussion is for. Life.temp (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would be curious to know why I'm on this guy's shit list. He links to the Wipipedia page on his userpage here, so they would seem to be the same guy ... WilyD 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That page looks like a joke to me. I shall ask him to add me to it. Jtrainor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is a joke. If you mean he probably hasn't actually hired Jason Bourne to kill User:Mr.Z-man, I agree. The point is that he comes to troll, and says so. (Additional comment: some editors will feel intimidated if they find themselves on that list.) Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see today that I am also on this list - this is because I have often questioned Igorberger's edits and I have had the audacity to block him for his foul play previously. Interestingly - for those that feel the need to assume good faith under any circumstance - actually checking through all of Igorberger's editing history will reveal that he has been questioned, warned and blocked by many, many other editors for his consistent trolling, his tenacious editing style, his blatant refactoring, his conflict of interest edits, his attempts to use the wikipedia name to further his personal businesses and his intimidation of other editors. His edits have been taken to task many times at ANI, MFD, and of course on his talk page. Igorberger uses the same methods for this always - simply substituting the name of his latest out of favour editor or administrator into his usual nonsensical diatribe. He then curries favour with other editors who through lack of time, interest or vanity support him because he called them his "brother" or "a good man" etc on their talk page. For those that feel the need to support - that is a matter for you to deal with, however trolling at this level is not a joke whether it is on wikipedia or off it. That said Igorberger knows that I am never intimidated by him and that I will as necessary block him again - and for considerable length of time if he steps over the line in the future - and I am not involved in that matter. For this matter - another administrator should act appropriately and quickly to again rein in this very poor representative of the wikipedia community who feels the need to belittle and user name/shame his fellow contributors.--VS ^talk 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban

I was || this close this blocking this guy indefinitely. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of long-term trolling has no place on our 'pedia. But I want to make sure it has consensus, so, what are your thoughts? Grandmasterka 03:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not neutral on this, as he and I chat on my talk page. I've seen him do disruptive things, but don't follow him around, so I evidently don't know the worst of it, but he's always seemed basically OK to me. He appears to contribute at least semi-productively at, for example, State terrorism and the United States (I don't follow that article much, so I can't quantify it more than that, but he seems to be working with other editors there).

If I was to talk with him about his future here, as someone he seems to respect, what would you like me to say beyond:

1. removing lists of WP users from his off-wiki page,
2. letting the SSP run its course without following life.temp around,
3. perhaps some kind of mentorship (if he's open to it, which I suspect, but don't know, he might be open to).

Again, I haven't followed his every move, but from what I know of him, the descriptions above seem a little too harsh, and (again acknowledging my COI here), indef blocking seems like too much. --barneca (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, Igor and I have gotten along in our interactions but I had grown rather wary, since although we tended to agree more or less on edits, I never seemed to agree with the unencyclopedic reasons he gave for agreeing with me (so I began thinking it might only be luck). Igor's behaviour as outlined above, about which I became aware only lately, is utterly blockable. However, the other day, he seemed to take my thoughts on his uncivil comments about others to heart. Hence, I strongly hope Igor at least shares his thoughts about his own behaviour before someone drops an indef block upon him. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Barneca & Gwen - not to throw water on your (and indeed our) general AGF principles but Barneca, Igor has been through this process of requesting he listen to someone he respects before. He has a history of jumping from one person he respects to another. See here for example his last ANI thread Gwen his "point taken" comment (like the one you diff) are exactly what he does every time he gets into hot water like this - for example this one where he apologises for being dickish after appearing to post an incorrect signature, or this one where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. Given that I have been watching his history for some months I hope you will understand why I support absolutely an indefinite block ... and if I was not attempting to remain non-proprietary at this time because he has slightly involved me in this issue by including my name in a rather cowardly off-wiki attack - I would do it myself.--VS ^talk 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I understand why I'd gotten wary. I see strong support here that Igor knows he's using this account for something other than building an encyclopeda. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VS's take on this. Igor tends to act as if he respects someone and is taking in their advice, but when it comes to practice he ignores it. Then, if pressed, he bites back. Just like everyone thinks when they first encounter him I used to believe that Igor genuinely wanted to be mentored, but I no longer hold that belief. I think he's going to keep on doing what he does despite what anyone tells him. He's not interested in changing -- but he will act like he is, just to get on people's good sides. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent summary of my experience with this editor. Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just do it. We don't need to subject good-faith contributors to this nonsense any longer. Some people are here to write, others notso much. --Haemo (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone done an Rfc then, (on Igor)? Wouldn't that be a reasonable procedure, and require two (2) users to endorse it, that they had tried and failed to resolve particular issues. (Not for or against, if there is evidence of particular transgressions that other editors wish to pursue.) --Newbyguesses (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Why in heavens name would be doing a request for comment? This is the appropriate procedure for transgressions to be considered and dealt with by Administrators--VS ^talk 10:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor said something yesterday that implied he wasn't going to participate in "life.temp's thread". If true, he may not know an indef block is being considered; I've notified him that he might want to say something here. How he handles that response will strongly affect my own opinion on whether this is the correct thing to do. Like I said, I haven't been following his every move, so it's possible the "mild" disruption I've seen myself has actually been significantly more. But based on my interaction with him, I'm just surprised. --barneca (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe it's just me, but I'm just seeing someone frustrated, who wants to call a spade a spade but feels he is prevented from doing so by the bureaucracy here (don't deny it...we all know it is overwhelming for newcomers). I would like to see an RFC, with specific issues raised (and hopefully dealt with, if he can be convinced to participate in good faith) before the banhammer is applied. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy nicknamed himself "Igor the Troll." He registered igorthetroll.com. He keeps a list of articles he's edited titled "Internet Trolling." And here we are trying to figure out if he is a troll. I mean...gee. Life.temp (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wants to call a spade a spade? What does he want to say that he's been prevented from saying? Igor's behavior hasn't exactly struck me as reserved. From what I've seen he's been rather open, and overly so.

• You're missing the point. This user has been given constructive criticism before. It's no longer a matter of identifying the problematic behavior and communicating it to him. That's been tried many times, by many different people, many of whom Igor thanked and came back to with further questions and praise. But all the while he never actually took any of the advice he was given. If you started an RFC for Igor, he'd say he's sorry a few times and tell everyone how much he appreciates their help, and then keep on doing what he does. More dispute resolution would just delay the inevitable. Igor has been the subject of extensive community discussion before, and he's been given advice, warnings, and finally ultimatums as a result. It's all been done. There's no reason reason to go through it all over again expecting different results.

• Besides which, an RFC, being a "request for comment", would be redundant with this discussion. We've got all the comments we need right here. Whether this discussion were carried out at ANI or RFC makes no difference, and this one is already started, so there's no point in beginning anew. If you have thoughts about Igor that you would have expressed at RfC, please feel free to state them here. It's all pretty much the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:41, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly stated - Equazcion - Of course one of the problems is that only those editors that have spent time over many months trying to understand and assist Igor actually have the background to know what damage he is doing to the project. To see that damage extending to off-wiki sites compounds the evidence. Quite frankly drive by comments from editors that have not experienced this editor's real reason for being here or who have not checked through all or at least a large quantity of his edits are not of any assistance because this is the very game that Igor hopes the community will play on his behalf.--VS ^talk 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, comments from "outsiders" is pretty much the point of WP:ANI. Otherwise it's just a big self-reinforcing echo chamber. --barneca (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it was not my suggestion to not allow "outsider" comments Barneca - it was my suggestion to editors not to comment unless that editor had made him/herself very familiar with Igor's editing history. I think you actually were the first above to suggest similarly that such a lack of familiarity makes any comment less than complete?--VS ^talk 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from outsiders are appreciated, but educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful. There are some cases at ANI that are glaringly obvious to "outsiders" and therefore might not require such an in-depth look. This unfortunately isn't one of them. The fact that this user acts so outwardly-agreeable is part of the point here. Drive-by commenters who don't look any deeper than that and come to the obvious conclusion that this is a misunderstood soul looking to reach out to someone are just perpetuating the very problem we're attempting to address. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:08, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor's been up on AN/I before, and I've commented on him before. Equazcion has it about right. Igor plays games. I'm one in the 'supports a community ban' column. ThuranX (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from this mess at ANI, because I do not think it is the right place to address all these issues, but I was requested to comment here. A lot of these has been started because the article anti-Americanism, but some of it goes back even before this article. Who is right and who is worng and why who did what is not a simple thing to address. I really feel ANI, fuels drama, and no good to Wikipedia project and all its editors. I feel all the conserns need to be addressed in proper venues of dispute resolution. Igor Berger (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, none of this has anything to do with content dispute resolution and it seems to have been going on for much longer than since you began editing anti-Americanism. Either way, I don't understand why you're not responding to all these things being said about you. Have you given this any thought? Is there anything you can do to skirt stirring up these kinds of complaints about your behaviour from now on? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I think ANI is the wrong place to address these conserns. Why has this escalated to this wikidrama in the first place? Could it be that dispute resolutions raised by me about editors and editors conserned with me were not addressed in proper dispute resolution venues? But yes, with regards to your consern, I will do my best not to flame the situation and be extremly civil in talking to other editors to address any problems that I or they may have. Igor Berger (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug. Also right now there are no WP:DIFFs but just accusations. I prefer to address all accusations in a more humane - stable - not flamed - atmosphere like RFC/U Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There many diffs to your edits in this thread. Why did you say there aren't any? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Ok, not to rehash every thing from scratch and go into a circular debate, what in particular would you like me to address? Igor Berger (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you refering to the 3 points that admin Barneca raised, I agree to all 3 of them. Igor Berger (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about the diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel the case for harassment of User:Life.temp has not been made. I filled an SSP report on him and Wiki-Etiquettes report. Because I found his behavior on article anti-Americanism problematic. I even came to you to ask for help because I could not get anyone to addres the issue accept of the editors involved in editing the article anti-Americanism. But those editor were having the same problem with the editor. We have all tried to talk to the editor about AA but he is taking it all as personal. If he feels that I have harassed him in anyway, I would like to apoligize to him for that. We are not here, to push anyone off the project. Like it says, "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Igor Berger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I've asked you twice why you said "right now there are no WP:DIFFs" in this thread when in truth there are many. Twice you haven't answered me. Instead, you've made non specific agreements and apologies with no reasoning or acknowledgement behind them to show you have any understanding of others' worries or a wish to follow up on them by swaying your behaviour. This is spot on the kind of thing these editors have been unhappy about with you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, this is my POV that the diffs to Lifi.temp harassment acquisitions have not been provided. But everyone has there own POV. Were the diffs supporting my behavior which is disapproved by some editor provided? I do not know, I was not referring to that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take these answers as an acknowledgement that you didn't bother to read this thread before replying to it? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the first part, dealing with acquisitions of harassment, the other part I did not read in full. It is a bit hard to read this long thread. That is why I proposed to address in RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Anyway, I like to apologize to any editor who thinks my behavior is not appropreate.I do not wish the community to see me in bad light. Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you apologizing for? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If some editors feel my behavior is not appropriate I need to respect what they saying and not beat the dead horse trying to prove them wrong. If editors have consern about another editor's behavior that editor needs to think why they have consern and try to fix that. Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment My take is that Igor would like to get along with what he's been doing (and hopes any other editors will "think why they have consern [sic] and try to fix that"). I think one "fix" might be a preventative block until Igor is more willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It remains the case that I'm interested to know why/how I'm in a conflict with this user (as he seems to think). WilyD 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wily, my apology to you for ever putting you on that list. We never had any contact between each other. I am trully sorry for atracting any negative attention to you. Igor Berger (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor why did you put him on an off-wiki hate-list when you'd never even had contact with him? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was because of a comment I read. The whole list is childish and stupid on my part. It is a disgrace to me and to Wikipedia. I created this list when I first started editing regularly Wikipedia and since then I have learned a lot about Wikipedia. And have had myself put on sily lists. I apologize to all editors who I have put on the list. I think any list talking about Wikipedians are bad taste and immature. Igor Berger (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Why is it still up? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) It's on a wiki, right? You could just delete it right now if you wanted to, right? That would be an excellent move; not to escape consequences, but because having that list is wrong, and not wise. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not want it to look like I am trying to hide something and refactor to make myself look good! I did a bad thing and I will remove it right now. Igor Berger (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed everyone from the list. Igor Berger (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Igor, but I'm starting to think that Gwen's "take" on this a little up the page might make sense. An indef block, not the "infinite" kind but the "until you're unblocked" kind, might make sense, where "out of the spotlight" (to use Igor's phrase), on his talk page, we can clarify what concerns really have to be addressed before unblocking. "willing or able to articulate what he's apologizing for", as it were. This solution, I would grudgingly support. A "ban", no. To me, a ban implies someone isn't welcome. I think Igor is welcome if he alters his behavior.

But in any case I think at this stage an RfC is going to turn into a mirror of this thread, and I don't think it's the solution. let's deal with it here and now. --barneca (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I am not trying to shrug my responsibility or say my behavior is good. But when someone comes and say your behavior is bad, it is hard to understand what is bad, unless you say. Igor this is bad, please correct it. Then I know what I need to fix. Like when I was asked not to post at ANI for 30 days, even after the 30 days I have not posted unless it is conserns me. So I do not close my ears, and think I know it all. I listen to my peers when they advise me and talk to me, instead of saying, "bad Igor" Igor Berger (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part deux

This kind of exchange is part of the problem. It doesn't get anywhere, because Igor isn't giving any actual answers. Take this sample from above:

Why do you say talking about it here is wikidrama? Gwen Gale

Because it flames things up, instead of addressing editors' conserns! There are times when ANI works but it really needs to be NPOV, or it gets derailed to a point where editors are playing football with one editor, using him as a ball. Then the audiance just jumps on the bandwagon, and more wikidrama. It is not healthy psychologically for anyone, and does not fix problems, but just brushes things under the rug." Igor berger

When you ask Igor to address something, he responds (if these can be called responses) by throwing around common phrases, big words, and most of all, policy abbreviations, most of which don't even apply to the current situation. "Neutral point of view" is about writing articles, and has nothing to do with discussions. On the contrary, everyone is encouraged to express their POVs during a discussion. That would be true no matter where it took place. ANI is just a venue. It doesn't cause any more drama than any other place. Talk here, Igor, because this is where the discussion began. It would be the same discussion, inducing the same level of "psychological health" and equally "addressing editors' concerns" no matter where it took place. A discussion likewise does not "sweep things under the rug" -- it of course does the opposite of that, airing things out in the open -- and again, the venue in which it takes place does not determine its level of under-rug sweepage. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:06, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am welcome to a discussion no matter where it takes place. I am glad you want to discuss thing with me. And have always welcomed it at my talk page. Please tell me one point at a time what is it about my behavior as a Wikipedia editor that conserns you. Igor Berger (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer completely separately from Gwen's question: Igor, are you willing to accept a mentor assigned by the community - yes or no? Franamax (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did try to keep this separate, guys, and in deference to Gwen's question. Since both have been artfully-replied-to, I'll ask mine again: community appoints mentor, Igor accepts, one more chance; community declines or Igor declines or mentorship fails, Igor faces a ban. Has this actually been tried? Can the previous mentor please comment? This is the last step before a ban and should have one spin around the block. Franamax (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally rather hear an answer to Gwen's question. Igor has always been outwardly willing to accept mentorship from the community -- he's had an adoption userbox posted on his userpage for as long as I can remember -- but mentoring has been tried and has never solved anything, as has been described repeatedly and at length above. Gwen is steering this in the right direction. Her question addresses the issue head-on. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:00, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that the mentorship issue has been addressed by Igor before who has been asking to be both an adopter and adoptee for many months (he considered himself a senior editor from very early in his wiki involvement), but when a well meaning senior editor tried to assist by pointing out the illogical nature of this Igor attacked him for trolling.--VS ^talk 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to accept mentor, and I was hoping to get one long time ago. I have a user box saying user looking to be atopted. I think I found an experience admin editor who might be interested in mentoring me. I would need to talk to him about this. Now the hard part, Gwen's question. Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:21, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. As you are aware, I came to you asking for advice on anti-Americanism but you really never talked to me. So I just kep adding what I though were problems to that section on your talk page but never got a definitive recommendation. Pretty much I had to read your mind, and guess as to what to do based on your actions on anti-Americanism article. Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor, why do you also then have a user box that indicates your belief that you are also a senior editor?--VS ^talk

This user has been given constructive criticism before. -- actually have the background to know what damage he is doing -- very familiar with Igor's editing history. -- Educated comments based on an examination of the editor's past contributions and exchanges is what would truly be helpful.

How about some [[DIFFs] (of Igor's bad contribbs. to articles, etc. in this discussion, before blocking/banning is enacted, please. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• [EC]Have a look at the diffs that are provided already Newbyguesses - from the most recent that I just gave through to his last ANI and then the one above where I linked to where another editor provides a very detailed summary as to why his editing is problematic and Igor thanks him for the evaluation but then continues to edit in the same style. That will give you a start.--VS ^talk 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, this edit as of 13:40, 22 November 2007 to Igor's User page was not good, [73], (added experienced wikipedian), and this Diff [74] was problematical also, (in user:space). --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding both user boxes of looking to be adopted and wanting to adopt was and is, that I need help, but no one came to adopt me; Why I want to adopt other users, is because I do know something and maybe able to help other users. Igor Berger (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To ban or not, part trois

Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?--VS ^talk 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igor you have just added to Equazcion that Well, I think working with a mentor will help me figure out what I am doing that is wrong. however when editor MKoltnow provided you with a very very detailed explanation of exactly what you were doing wrong - you did not seem to adjust your editing style in anyway. How do you explain that?--VS ^talk 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  Well it was a good evaluation and I thanked the editor. But he did not come around to help me work with the problems. If he would have gave me one point at a time a discuss that point with me, maybe I could have fixed the problem. But he brought me a full plate and it was hard to digest. Igor Berger (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• To respond to the anti-americanism comment, Igor, I didn't respond to you because I along with EL_C had previously asked that you not go around like a messenger, delivering news to people on what's going on at articles -- which you seemed to agree to stop doing at the time, but then you continued. So I wasn't going to encourage that practice by responding. I did attempt to help out with the dispute at the anti-Americanism article though -- and all the while you kept on posting news about it on my talk page. Please don't dwell on this though -- answer VS's concerns now. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:07, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

An individual named "Igor the Troll" started a Google Groups thread called WikiPedia has undercover FBI and CIA agents as editors because he was blocked for 31 hours. This was right after VirtualSteve blocked Igor for 31 hours. Text of message: I was recently attacked and blocked from editing for 31 hours because I added a video link about Prescott Bush the gradfather of George W. Bush being pro Hitler and anti FDR. Does this seem like a thread started by someone interested being mentored? Life.temp (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got enough evidence of off-wiki attacks as a result of blocks. Thanks Life.temp, but dwelling on these is not constructive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:10, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation - I brought up the question of community-appointed mentorship, it's yes or no and needs no comment. VS' original question is now being obscured:

"Okay - now that we are back on track Igor - can you please give a detailed answer to Gwen's question?" Franamax (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

community-appointed mentorship yes Gwen question, I thought I answered it. Can you guide me a bit what I missed. Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did answer:

Yes I agree with Gwen, just reading policy and then spiting it out, is problemtatic. At the end of the day, it is plain English, not policy that constitute communication. Igor Berger (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I said:

Igor, getting you to agree with Gwen was not the point of her question. You need to address this, as it is at the center of the issue. How do you think her assessment applies to your past behavior? If you agree that shes accurately described what you've been doing, how do you explain that? And what will you do differently in the future?

So let's start from there. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

To restate it for convenience: Igor, looking at your edit history I often get a feeling you've looked over many talk and project pages, memorized some Wikipediaish jargony stuff and other catch phrases, then jumbled it all up, to later use as a kind of easy shorthand when replying to other editors, in the hope this would make you seem knowledgeable and experienced. The pith is, since this method doesn't even begin to help you talk with other editors in any meaningful or helpful way, they take it as game playing or disruption. What do you think about that? Gwen Gale Equazcion •✗/C • 23:18, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• and this relates to Gwen's second question as above Earlier you had said you found this thread hard to read. Now you're saying that you can't take in more than one thing at a time. Do you think building an encyclopedia from reliable sources on a skeinish, open, highly threaded website like Wikipedia is something you can handle? --VS ^talk 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Makes sence with refernces to WP:Social engineering Internet essay that I wrote. Yes it makes me look foolish. Igor Berger (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We need a detailed answer to this whole question Igor! Can I ask that everyone sits back now to wait for a few minutes for Igor's answer before adding any more questions or comments, please--VS ^talk 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)(ec) Yes I can. When dealing with direct question, I can answer them. But if you just put 10 questions to me and do not come back to talk about them, how I suppose to respond to you? Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(VS)Can you in your own words ask me the question? Because I thought I answered it to Gwen. Igor Berger (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Igor. Y'all, don't you see what's happening here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do Gwen and I have seen it countless times before - do we really need any more discussion - I have much better things to do on Wiki?--VS ^talk 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah I'm getting that deja-vu-all-over-again feeling too. No, we don't need any more discussion. I believe the time has come to act. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Ban, the shitlist is the straw that convinces me he's not here to be constructive. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Having followed this since early January, this is a very intelligent guy who either doesn't get it; adapts slowly; or has a very clear and amusing plan. Either last-chance mentorship by someone who won't tolerate obfuscation, or ban. Franamax (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• So that my opinion is clear - and also as having been following the progress of this editor for months - Ban.--VS ^talk 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I regretfully believe it's time for an indef block for disruptive behavior, with the continuing possiblity of discussion on their talk page. A "ban", implying not even being able to edit their own talk page and being, in a sense, persona non grata, is something I continue to strongly oppose. --barneca (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that an indef-block would likely only be lifted with an agreement to mentorship, are you willing to assume that role? Franamax (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting a giant "I told you so" from many people here doen the line, yes. If Igor is blocked, as long as he is not also unreasonably prevented from editing his own talk page, I'll try to mentor him there. If I feel we've reached a point where returning to Wikipedia editing would be productive, I'll bring it up at WP:ANI. If I ever reach a point where I don't think my time is being spent productively, then I'll quit, and unless he can find someone else, he'll be effectively banned. Igor has accepted the idea of a mentorship arrangement on my talk page: [75]. --barneca (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Barneca's willing to try, I support his suggestion of mentoring Igor on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any progress in this user since the first similar ANI thread. Instead I see the same behavior repeated over and over again. Mentorship and further discussion would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would just give this user a further forum to do what he does -- drag out painful and dramatic discussions until everyone loses interest. I'm quite certain my opinion is already clear, but I haven't actually said the word yet, so ban. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• BanBlock indef for disruption, with mentoring on talk page. This user's edit history and his answers in the above thread give me no hint a mentor would be of any help. However, Barneca has said he is willing to try. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:Equazcion's attitude is plain, and obviously reasonable, since Equazcion has previously spent considerable effort in attempting to solve the problem there is with Igor, and their communications. 10 Apr 2008 (UTC). If User:Igorberger is "blocked", that is not a "ban". I haven't been on Igor's talkpage, though Igor has messaged to user talk:newbyguesses, about wikipedia:essays, not articles. I do not know the extent (it was mentioned) or background nor a lot of the details of Igor's accusations about the other user, subject to the original wikiquette alert by Igor which started off this AN/I thread. I think Igor can contribute productively, maybe a shortish "block", with continued clue-ing on the talk-page, is the best option at this time, though (I am not an admin) I wouldn't do it, apologies to those Users whose opinions differ. --NewbyG (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay I can see the merit of an indefinite block and some considerable question and answer tutelage under Barneca's guidance where Igor can only edit his talk page until Barneca is as absolutely certain as he can be that Igor is going to edit appropriately. Also because Barneca will in effect be the only one to unblock - I am willing to block indefinitely now (because this will be a consensus decision and thus there should be no concern over COI by my doing so. If I get a couple of agreements I will act now - thoughts please?--VS ^talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Normally COI would be an issue, but consensus here is nearly unanimous, seems silly to wait patiently for some other admin to come along. --barneca (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been endorsing a ban for a while here. Someone just do it already. --Haemo (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I think we're talking now about the anonymous editor above offering to indef-block and Barneca is the soft-hearted potential sucker on the line? Agree to that. Franamax (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do it now, I don't think anyone will make much of a fuss so long as he's blocked and Barneca's watching his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• And now done folks - a big thanks to Barneca for putting his time and energy on the line, and a big hope that Igor will actually use this opportunity.--VS ^talk 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gulp. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barneca, I'm impressed that someone went for my last-ditch argument. Read the history carefully and watch out, but all power to you, save a good one for the team if you can! :) Franamax (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.