Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 24 June 2010 (→Edit warring with bureaucrats: Let's keep the discussion in one place, shall we). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see ; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Misplaced Pages: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here ); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Misplaced Pages is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Misplaced Pages:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bali ultimate is certainly not a Holocaust denier. If Cimicifugia doesn't straighten up and fly right, an indef is in order. I've not looked all the way through this, but from what I am seeing, we're prolly past that point. The diffs offered by Tarc above are quite damning. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend anyone calling another editor a Holocaust denier without solid evidence. Cimicifugia was rightly blocked. However, it might be worth reflecting on how Bali ultimate's editing could have lead someone to make such an inflammatory charge. The persistence by some editors in trying to delete, cut down or merge this material was quite confrontational, and on such a sensitive topic as this it was probably unwise to characterise the topic of the NYT's coverage of the Holocaust as 'fringe' or 'non-notable' (the subject has had one book written about it, and appears in many other sources, e.g. from a quick search). A more compromising approach might have been to widen the scope of the article to contemporary American coverage of the Holocaust in general. Cimicifugia was infuriated to the point at which they were convinced they were dealing with editors who were historical revisionists. Lacking an understanding of the tendency of Wikipedians to doggedly persist in trying to remove content they object to, they could see no motivation for wishing to downplay this content other than Holocaust denial. Fences&Windows 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What that suggestion of yours essentially amounts to though is special treatment be given to Holocaust topics, to treat them with kid gloves. There's no shortage of hot-button, controversial, and emotionally-laden subject areas that this encyclopedia has to deal with each and every day. Yes, Cimicifugia was infuriated, but the the responsibility for that is his and his alone. Some people simply cannot handle criticism or dissenting points of view, especially when it comes to religion, and IMO this one. This user needs to check his emotional baggage at the door if he wishes to edit collaboratively, and not see Holocaust deniers behind everyone who holds a different opinion. Malcolm Shoshsa (the socking 173.52.182.160 IP that infested this article's talk page) went down a similar road, calling his perceived opponents, myself included, antisemites. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was offering an explanation, not an excuse. I said Cimicifugia was rightly blocked: he should not have accused anyone of being a Holocaust denier. We are all agreed on this, but do we not wish to learn how to avoid antagonising other editors? Yes, on controversial topics we should be careful not to belittle the concerns of good faith editors. The AfD in January closed as keep (Bali ultimate called the article "effectively a topic made up one day by a[REDACTED] editor"), but editors including Bali ultimate persisted in trying to remove the content. Bali ultimate said things like "You seem to be peddling the Truth", "your earlier screed", "filled with lies and distortion", "such edits are deceitful, the acts of an agenda driven editor or editors, or merely irresponsible and incompetent ones", "numerous lies were told in the original writing of this article." This is not just about "dissenting points of view", persistent hostile editing was occurring. If you look at the original version of the article it was scrappy and went into too much detail on Arthur Hays Sulzberger, but it does not resemble what Bali ultimate said about it. The editing and talk page of this article do not put Misplaced Pages in a good light. Fences&Windows 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some people would be quite pleased to be called a Holocaust denier. Many would not -- Bali among them. As such, use of the phrase here is inflammatory. If Cimi wishes to make a point, I would suggest he in the future use different phraseology that is not so inflammatory to Bali (and many others), though it might be longer -- such as, "Bali, who has IMHO deleted perfectly reasonable RS-supported information about the Holocaust". Or something on that order -- I expect others' here could come up with a shorter phrase, that would also pass muster. I believe that if he were to do that, that would allow for the parties to continue in their merry conversation within wiki rules, and focus on the merits of edits, in a more civil environment. In short, Bali has every right to object to being so labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Relief from abusive editor

Some feedback: this has not been a good experience of fairness, equality before the law, innocent until proven guilty, a thorough review of all the facts, or any of the standard practices through the centuries to prevent abuse of power.

I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. It was an analogy. It was also used in a question on my talk page where i was trying to get help in formulating a clear description of the problem with hostile editors. I will try again without using that term.

I do respectfully protest, however: it seems there is a double standard when bali's repetitive insults and name calling get a pass. Why would my one instance alleged name calling be a worse offense than his vandalism? A worse offense than his long time pracice of bullying, abusive tactics? Look at the discussion page – my record is a model of self control and politeness. His model is a scandal. Yet his histrionic ‘I am livid’ response to being compared to a holocaust denier was considered the big problem.

People, like bali, phgustaf and looneymonkey, who find mainstream, impeccably referenced facts about the holocaust not worthy of inclusion in Wiki because the topic is a lie, trivial, just an opinion – such people are not at all likely to be welling meaning. I gave the hostile editors on this topic the benefit of the doubt for months, trying to answer the valid parts of their demands for more references. First they didn’t like just having Proessor Leff as a reference. Quotes to show she is respected as the top authority were met with silence. Then they didn’t like the actual apology of the NYTimes itself – just an op ed they said. They wouldn’t include the fact it was a full page op ed in the 150th anniversary edition. Then they didn’t accept the fact the Times acknowledged their failure in the 100th anniversary edition as well. They claimed the Newseum reference wasn’t usuable, so I found the entire, intact script the newseum wrote for the history channel. Then they insisted the material wasn’t to be used because it was from a single source. they claimed the program wasn't about the topic, even tho' the Times is mentioned over 50 times. They wouldn’t allow those of us who wanted to use information from the Holocasut Museum, the Wyman Institute on Holocaust studies, or the Harvard Shorenstein center on journalism. They accused the constructive editors of cherry picking, but when invited to provide the balance they claimed was missing, they provided nothing. At this point it was clear that their claims this was a trivial, fringe topic with no validity that didn’t belong in wiki was not from ignorance with the references. They now had all the references, top references, exact quotes, Cambridge University Press. They still wanted a misleading stub. They are not sincere. They are not well meaning. They have a Holocaust problem – call it what you will. I ask for the three of them to be permanently banned from working on this article, since all they doing is sabotage.Cimicifugia (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

You just essentially repeated the attacks that got you blocked previously. Do we have to permanently block you to ensure that these attacks stop? If you cannot assume good faith about other editors and edit without making personal attacks you cannot participate in Misplaced Pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider the screed above a work of fiction. You'll notice the absence of diffs supporting any of his assertions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I had a feeling that a "if I add the qualifier functional then it isn't really an insult" defense was on the horizon. Indef this user and save us all further headaches. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• As an involved editor on the page in question, I do feel that while it is 100% clear that the "denier" label needs to be apologized for and a block is quite reasonable here, Bali has been anything but civil on that talk page. His behavior, IMO, is so poor that it might even amount to baiting. I've found his behavior impossible to deal with and so largely left the discussion. The 30-day protection was also uncalled for and if anything made the situation worse. That we are back here _again_ for the same page twice in 30 days should say something. And the attempt to remove the page even after a keep result at AfD should make it pretty plain where the problem is. This is a topic with an entire book written about it and significant coverage well beyond what we'd generally look for in a topic. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Nobody on the current page wants to remove the current content. Some want to merge it with Criticism of The New York Times. I think this is a good idea because the current title is an unlikely search term and the information would be more accessible in the larger article, but I don't see it as a big deal either way. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Involved Editor PhGustaf

I will respond to an assertion that I'm a Holocaust denialist about as soon as I respond to an assertion I fuck pigs.

Bali's edit summaries were unfortunate, but his edits probably saved the article at AfD. I nominated the initial mess for deletion; I wouldn't nominate the current one.

Cimicifugia is not a newbie. He doesn't have a lot of edits, but anyone who has been around for nearly two years and learnt not a whit of policy just isn't trying.

All his edits this year have been on this topic, including edits to the topic, talk about the topic, canvassing for support, and attempts to insert big chunks of his stuff into other articles he thinks appropriate.

On his talk page he asked for help several times, and each time chose to ignore the help. (He certainly ignored my mention of WP:TLDR.)

It's not hard to conclude that his sole goal here is getting his essay onto wikipedia.

Unless this guy has a Gestalt or an epiphany or something he's not going to be a good editor. PhGustaf (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that I had 13 relatives die in the thing and our family permanently lost properties including a hotel, so my opinions on the Holocaust are pretty strong and it's not something I usually go near. That being said, looking at the article (and I read it for the first ever time about 10 minutes ago), it appears that the argument is fundamentally between a version which looks like this, and a version that looks like this (not accounting for minor modifications either way, and noting the editors those diffs are attached to are not the primary parties responsible).

The second of these is a major, major violation of WP:WEIGHT and had significant sourcing issues. There is more than a screen devoted to a single editorial and two people's opinions. The sourcing almost entirely goes back to a limited number of publications, and to be honest, parts of it look like advertising or promotion for at least one of the authors - see WP:SOAP. The grammar makes it almost painful to read. And there is a hell of a lot of POV wording, suggesting almost a measure of liability in the actions of the editor. e.g. "In 1944, the Jewish death toll was officically four million dead. The Times editorial still supported restrictive quotas against Jews." WP:SYN advises strongly against making such links without very strong evidence.

The alternate, shorter version, while using the same sources, uses them reasonably sharply and effectively, and on a topic which has been judged to be notable, I think it does the job reasonably well. I can actually read this and understand what is going on. And it's written in standard English. And WP:NPOV is respected - this is the opinions of a former editor, a professor and a historian and they are presented as such, not as immutable fact.

On the separate matter of behaviour, my view is that Cimicifugia's allegations are beyond the pale - the version Bali ultimate supports does not deny the Holocaust, so to call him such is pure polemics and does not aid constructive dialogue in any way. If they don't give this sort of stuff up soon, I don't think their chances of staying on Misplaced Pages are very high. On the other hand I can see plenty of evidence that Bali ultimate has been far from an angel in the conduct of this matter, which muddies the waters a bit. I can't fault Bali much on the content, but there is an old saying "one can be so right that one is wrong" and they would do well to consider how their actions come across to others. The other players in this (on both sides) appear to have behaved reasonably, apart from an IP address which may or may not have been a sock of a blocked editor and has itself been blocked. Orderinchaos 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

On further review, User:Cimicifugia appears to be a WP:SPA on this particular topic, and has been so for much of their two-year editing history. Some revealing comments on their talk page suggest they don't understand WP:OWN very well. Orderinchaos 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hmm. To me, the most interesting thing about this discussion is there is an article on[REDACTED] titled "The New York Times and the Holocaust". What's going on with this project? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's going on is that the page is locked down for a month and is being discussed here. If you're interested in contributing to it, join the pleasant chat at its talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to defer archiving. I think this matter needs some sort of resolution. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, not much in the way of resolution, more commentary, but Cimicifugia has made only one edit since their block expired. Unfortunately that edit suggests that the problem remains: I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. I'm unconvinced that Cimicifugia understands the problem. TFOWR 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced that he does not understand the problem, and has been unswayed by any argument for at least six months. This thread has unfortunately has made him even more defensive. If we just let the thread lapse, we'll be back soon with another one. I'm trying to think of a less drastic response than a topic ban, but I'm coming up blank. PhGustaf (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry

"unresolving" the case, see my comment below with this timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved again because of unblock request.  Sandstein  20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) – and resolved again as unblock request declined,  Sandstein  04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request admin action against Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for creating an attack page about me, which he said he intended to post to mainspace.

He and I have been in a content dispute for several months at Christ myth theory, after I opposed its promotion to FA status and tried to help fix it in ways Eugene disagreed with. He recently arrived at an article I had rewritten, John Polkinghorne, and proceeded to make certain changes. We got into a content dispute; he violated 3RR; and I posted a report on the 3RR noticeboard, which was not acted on—see here.

A few hours later, Eugene created an article about me, now oversighted, in his userspace. It was written in the form of a Misplaced Pages article, and he said here on his talk page that he intended to post it to mainspace under the title "SlimVirgin". When he saw it had been deleted, he even asked another admin to undelete it for him. The article was written in a purportedly sympathetic tone about how I'd been cyberstalked, but it repeated the details of the stalking. He says it wasn't intended as an attack page, but it's hard to see how else to interpret it.

I feel this crossed a line and that some kind of action needs to be taken. Eugene is the pastor of an American Baptist church and relentlessly pushes what seems to be (in my view) a fundamentalist Christian POV. He regularly disparages sources he disagrees with—to the point of causing BLP problems—belittles editors who oppose him, and engages in serial reverting. He's definitely one of the most aggressive editors I've come across. There's a previous discussion here on AN/I about his comparing sources who argue Jesus may not have existed with Holocaust deniers.

If no action is taken about the attack page, he'll interpret it to mean that this degree of hostility is acceptable. I'd like to know whether there's community consensus to do something about it, and if so what. I kept a copy of the article, so I could email it to a couple of people to vouch for the contents, if that's needed. SlimVirgin 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on other behavior I'm concerned, but when you had that oversighted (as opposed to just deleted or hiding those revisions) you removed it from normal on-wiki review processes. There are only a handful of people who can comment on what was there now.

I am not comfortable with the idea of taking action for something I can't even see.

Are there non-oversighted edits which he's done which demonstrate the behavior problem pattern clearly?

If not, if someone who saw it pre-oversight feels that the material justified action that's fine, they can do so, but posting here for general review seems sort of hard without evidence to point to...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I kept a copy, so I'll e-mail it to you. SlimVirgin 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pickle, isn't it? I can't imagine any scenario where a valid G10 and oversight would be- in any way- acceptable, but the fact that oversight was employed means all but a couple dozen are unable to say anything definite about this. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Received. It's not a bright-line immediate-indef blockable attack page, but it's concerning and worthy following up on.

I'm asking Eugeueacurry some questions on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that creating a page like this about a fellow editor in response to a content dispute was indeed a bright-line issue. SlimVirgin 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially if an oversighter felt the page justified that level of suppression... Bobby Tables (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But how do we know if it is justified if the reasons and evidence are not transparent (i.e., made, at least temporarily, public)? As someone once said, "Trust, but verify". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but isn't it unfair to accuse someone of something without making the evidence public? I mean, not doing so seems like a secret trial. Am I wrong about this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bill supports Eugene no matter what the latter says or does. SlimVirgin 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So an editor can't be blocked for creating an attack page unless the attack page is left in public view? Um- no- not at all. Deletion of attack pages is very sound policy, as is blocking editors who create them. --Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I have no problem with the deleting of attack pages. That IS a sound policy. My point is that if the "article" is not made public while deciding its merits, doesn't that put a question mark on the decision process? I mean, shouldn't the process be open in order to insure fairness? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm trying hard to imagine what could be on that page that would not be obvious harassment. I'm failing. The very act of creating an article about someone you're having a conflict with, and claiming you plan to put it in article space, is a prima facie attempt at intimidation, or at the very least baiting. It's gone, and he has said he won't be adding it again, so I suppose I won't block now, but IMHO this is the kind of shit we should be blocking people for, not using naughty words or making mistakes with a script. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, the mere act of creating an 'article' about a user you're in a dispute with is disruptive and probably amounts to harassment. Do we need an interaction ban? In any case, any further harassment or personal attacks by Eugeneacurry on SlimVirgin should result in a substantial block. Fences&Windows 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I can honestly say that that I wrote that "article" without malice and with every intention of having it conform to Misplaced Pages's policies, including WP:NPOV. I intended to submit it to the Deletion Review folks (since the namespace had been salted) once it was finished, so I understood that it needed to be entirely above board. That said, it seems that three people who have actually read it found it problematic and I've agreed to let it go. Perhaps I was "too close" to the situation to see it for what it was; but I never meant it to be anything other than a good-faith high quality stub.

In any event, the admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block; so far the 3RR board haven't felt my actions at John Polkinghorne (where SlimVirgin also reverted pretty liberally) warrented blocking; SlimVirgin's attempt to raise the issues again here seems to be little more than forum shopping in an effort to silence my opposition to some of her edits at Christ myth theory. Still, like I've said, I'll not try again to write an article on her, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugene (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, a lot of people her have just pushed WP:AGF to its limit. If you want to continue editing here, then please do not create anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attacking somebody, regardless of whether that's your intent. Please try to work collaboratively with all editors, including SV and if you can't play nicely, stay away from each other. The best advice I can give you is the oft-ignored phrase "comment on content, not the contributor". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block -- I beg your pardon. I didn't feel it warranted an immediate block; your disingenuousness regarding your motivations makes me wonder if my judgment was a little off. --jpgordon 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all being disingenuous; I've been exposed to SV through less than ideal circumstances, but the exposure prompted interest, the interest to an attempt at a wiki page. I don't see anything sinister about that. But like I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene is asking us to believe that of all the millions of topics out there he could have created a stub on, I was the most interesting thing he could think of, and it was a cooincidence that this occurred to him hours after I reported him for 3RR. SlimVirgin 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even without having seen the page, I'm quickly becoming of the mindset that this might, indeed, be worth a block. --Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that wiki-drama that does not reach the point of major media coverage (we all know the main examples of this) is encyclopedic enough for inclusion is dubious, at best, which makes assuming good faith difficult. Kansan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that coverage in the New York Times and Slate was "major" enough. But as I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I see two pretty simple principles here. The first has to do with any-page-that-has-been-construed-as-an-attack-page. I see zero excuse for it at Misplaced Pages. Of course we create pages in which we documented the times we have been attacked, for use as evidence at ArbCom. But Curry is clearly talking about something else. The principle is simple: we should be here working on articles. Criticize articles, praise articles, edit articles. There is simply no need to descend into attacks against others. This is a no-brainer. The second issue is the oversight. You cannot blame SV for asking. If fault lies with anyone, it is with someone who has oversight powers using them improperly. I am concerned about blsming SV for someone else's actions. Sure, we can disagree over how she reacted. But the responsibility for any redacting or overlight lies with the person SV went to. WP depends on giving these powers to people of good judgment. If you want to question their judgment, fine, but direct your questioning at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused ... you're complaining about oversight of the page? We normally oversight things that invade editors' privacy. Slim was 100% correct to ask for it to be oversighted and whoever oversighted it was 100% correct to do so. Attempting to out your fellow editors is not an acceptable tool in a content dispute. In creating this page, Eugeneacurry showed that he is not able to edit cooperatively and I strongly feel a lengthy block or ban would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@B - no, I am not complaining against oversight. I am not complaining against anything. I am simply saying that Eugenecurry has no grounds to complain against SlimVirgin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you removed my comment Eugene? Removing a comment that suggests you be banned makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. --B (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was an unintentional mix-up stemming from an edit conflict. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Eugenecurry for removing User B's post, which advocated a block, as alluded to above in the middle of a discussion regarding their lack of appreciation of the inappropriate responses they made in an earlier dispute with an editor. Any admin who feels that Eugenecurry has become sufficiently clued up as to the correct use of protocol and practice in these matters may unblock without reference to me. I would also urge parties not to allow this block to simply become fact, but to arrive at a consensus on how this matter may be resolved (which, of course, might include an indef block) with or without Eugenecurry's continued involvement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked under the "block people for the right reasons" banner. I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action. --jpgordon 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It might help the discussion if I described (in very broad non-attack terms) the nature of the article so that this conversation might be put in context. I mentioned SV edit count (sourced to a minor regional newspaper), her first name as she gave it in an interview with a reporter (sourced to that reporter's article in a minor regional lifestyle publication), her experience as a subject of cyberstalking--using the term "stalking"--(sourced to a major mainstream online publication), some of the coverage the stalking recieved in peri-Misplaced Pages venunes (sourced to a major national newspaper and a technical journal), two theories predicated on that stalking--neither of which were presented as flat facts and neither of which were intrinsically disreputable/negative--I thought they were sort of glamourous myself--or overly personal (sourced to the previously mentioned major mainstream online source and the lifestyle source), and SV's response to the situation in terms of founding a new organization (sourced to the lifestyle publication). I didn't include any information that hadn't already been covered by reliable sources, I didn't try to make SV look bad, I didn't editorialize. While the community thinks it was nevertheless inappropriate (would you feel the same way if I wasn't the one who wrote it and if it was about someone on some other Wiki-like project?) I hardly think it rises to the level of a vicious "attack" and I certainly don't think it merits blocking.

I realize that Misplaced Pages tends to err on the side of restraint and privacy regarding it's editors, but I felt that if other notable editors who recieved mainstream media coverage could have a Misplaced Pages article (e.g. Essjay, though I recongnize that Essjay is a more controversial figure), why not SlimVirgin Eugene (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been here long enough that you know that casual mentions are not evidence of notability. There is obviously nothing out there for writing a biography of her. Also, as Slim correctly pointed out, your revelation of this as a topic for an article occurring during a dispute with her is completely unbelievable. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to defend this. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my only defense on the notability point is that at least some of the sources (the lifestyle one and a couple others I didn't get a change to integrate into the body) focused largely on SV. As for the timing, you're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that this is unrelated to your editing dispute. You don't appear to have been inspired to make articles about any editors with whom you are not in conflict. If I were in this situation- I came to believe that a person with whom I was in conflict was so important that an article about them must be written- I'd probably go to articles for creation and see if any neutral people wanted to take on the project, just to make sure that my own judgment wasn't clouded by our disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect you are obviously right. I should have just put in a request for an article and simply provided the links to the RSes. I had thought, foolishly it seems, that SlimVirgin might have been impressed by my fairness towards her in the article and realized that I'm not just a jerk opposing her in other article disputes for spite, that my concerns are substantive and not motivated by personalities. Could I still submit the sources and a request? Or would that only be construed as further evidence of my nefarious intentions?

As for my not writing an article on other editors (those on my "side" of disputes), I'm not aware that any of them are notable. But if you're aware of reliable sources covering Bill the Cat 7, I'd write the article this afternoon. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's utterly impossible to believe that this is unrelated to your long, bitter editing disputes. I'm not sure whether or not you can make a case for technically not violating some behavioral policy or guideline, but this has the stink of bad faith all over it. (Why you would do this while identifying yourself as a minister on your user page is shocking to me. You don't really need to sacrifice the second greatest commandment for the first. ) As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, your creation of the page a serious violation of WP:DISRUPTION, which I think is a good, catch-all policy for this kind of behavior. As I told you a while back on your user page, I really hoped you'd try to get along. And wouldn't the normal thing to do when creating an article about another editor be to contact that editor and, if told the editor didn't want an article, then to drop the idea unless there were some overriding need for it? I can't assume good faith enough to accept your explanation just above at 15:02. It doesn't look believable that you would create this without contacting her first. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When the material was first deleted off my talk space I said that I would be willing to submit it to SlimVirgin for review prior to submitting it to the Deletion Review team. When it became clear that SV wasn't pleased, I said that I'd drop it. Eugene (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the good-faith way of doing it would be (1) get the idea to create an article of, at best, marginal notability; (2) contact the editor/subject with the idea, preferably in a private email; (3) procede further only if the editor is receptive to the idea. Especially with an editor you've had conflicts with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I am a little bit confused about your reverting LessHeardVanU. Are you simply asking that there be more discussion before Eugenecurry be indefinitely blocked? Or are you cateorically opposed to such a block? You wrote, "I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action" and I would appreciate it if you would amplify on this. I personally cannot think of a time when one editor created an article on another editor in the middle of an edit conflict. I personally see this as the worst kind of edit-warfare. I see no encyclopedic justification for this. How Eugenecurry could think that the world needs an encyclopedia article on Slim Virgin is frankly beyond me, but no matter how I look at it I just do not see any "good faith" spin on his doing so in the middle of an edit war. I see this as truly corrosive to the encyclopedia. I would like to restore LHVU's block but out of deferrence to you, would first ask for you to clarify whatever you think ought to be discussed first. What am I missing here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• LHVU blocked Eugene not for creating the page about SV, but for refactoring B's posting here advocating a block; except that Eugene didn't remove it - he got caught in the common "edit conflict glitch" where two editors post very close to each other and the second edit overrides the first, making it look like the second poster has deleted the first poster's edit. It happened to me recently, and when I posted at VPT, it turns out it's fairly common. So it was a good unblock. Having said that, I'd have blocked Eugene indef anyway for creating the attack page in the first place. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that block. Clearly this is retaliation for SV's editing. AniMate 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above. His explanation that it was an accidental removal seems fine. He should clearly be indefinitely blocked, not for the accidental removal, but because he has clearly demonstrated he cannot edit cooperatively. --B (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a number of people are advocating an indefinite block. What precisely is the intended purpose of such an action? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To prevent the disruption and genuine human distress which your presence seems to have caused and have the potential to continue to cause. FWIW, I support an indefinite block. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV has emailed me a copy of the text, and I agree with George that it isn't blatantly an attack. But Eugene is not some juvenile, either, he can argue very intelligently at Talk:Christ myth theory and he's smart enough not to produce something simple, so I think he knew he was doing something harmful to another editor. He says now that he wouldn't do it again. George used the word "concerning". I'd say I'm concerned about him, too. Some of his comments early in this discussion indicate he doesn't quite understand just how bad this is. I hate to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm not familiar with past practices, so I'm fine with following whatever the common practices have been in situations with this kind of a less-blatant attack page. At the very least, he should get some kind of block, in part so that the fact he wrote an attack page is on the block record. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanations, and retract my question for Jpgordon. I agree that refactoring a post is not an acceptable reason for an indefinite block (although if this occured at a much earlier stage in this conflict, a 24-hr. block might have sent a much needed message). I have just blocked Eugenecurry indefinitely because i think it is a disgrace to use a[REDACTED] article as a means of pursuing a conflict against an editor. The minimum integrity of the project as a whole is based on the idea that we create encyclopedia articles in good faith. Eugenecurry has demonstrated the worst kind of faith that perverts the encyclopedia by using it against itself. I further note that this occured after a very long period of edit-warring and what appears to be some degree of stalking. I see that diferent editors have tried to impress upon Eugenecurrie the importance of working within the spirit of our core policies and he has chosen to edit-war instead. I think there has been a healthy discussion here, with the participation of a wide range of editors, who express support for this indef. block. I trust this one will stick and if any other admin. questions my act I would be glad to discuss it further. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear -- refactoring a post might or might not be an acceptable reason for a block, but since Eugenecurry didn't refactor a post, but instead encountered an annoying bug, that block was just incorrect. I agree with your block here; he doesn't get it. --jpgordon 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse. Eugenecurry's actions were so far beyond the pale of acceptability this is the only response. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. For reasons already stated articulately above. The circumstances/timing here are telling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I've seen a copy of the deleted content and, although it's not really an attack (SV is a ) type thing, it's not the kind of thing one would write in good faith. I think Eugene has been disingenuous in this thread and generally wasted a lot of time and proved to be a very aggressive editor and I think this block is a necessity, at least for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Resp to Slrubenstein (and Jpgordon) I indef blocked because of what appeared to be the refactoring of another editors comment, which was proposing a block/ban, during a discussion regarding that same editors extremely poor response to an earlier editor dispute. While I am content with the unblock on the basis of a glitch making it appear that the editor removed content deliberately when they did not, I would point out that I didn't make the sanction upon that incident in isolation - and that I noted specifically that they might be unblocked once it was clear the editor would not make further similar edits (which, since they did not in the second place, meant they could be unblocked promptly). Indefinite is just that, any time period between "how fast can I hit the unblock button" and "forever" and only for as long as it is deemed appropriate. Of course, next time you could ask... Oh, and, yes, good block by Slr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking this over while cooking dinner, I'm becoming more of the mind that a full community ban might be in order here. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Eugeneacurry's actions are spectacularly inappropriate, and his behaviour on WP over the last several months do nothing to convince me that there is any benefit to be had from allowing him to continue editing here. Good riddance. Call it a ban if you want, this one should not be allowed back any time soon. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just what is going on here?no need for me to put it that way -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I was rereading this thread and it occurred to me that Eugenecurry was involved in a past thread on this page, so I looked it up. (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism, from two months ago) I thought I might put a link here so that any admin who might be considering lifting the block in the future would have a little more insight into Eugenecurry's previous conflicts. I was very surprised to see that the previous thread was a complaint Eugenecurry made against Slrubenstein, the admin who has now indef blocked him. I still agree with the block, but that wasn't good form, it shouldn't have been done by Slrubenstein. Looking over WP:BLOCK#Conflict of interest, I see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. I think a mere two-month distance between this thread and the previous one counts as "are involved". If an admin not previously in a conflict with Eugenecurry wouldn't mind unblocking and then reapplying the block, it's more likely to be respected in the future. It's important that the blocked editor, his friends and everyone else think that the process here was fair, even if they disagree with the result. It won't help to have a messy block followed by an unblock that will likely be messy, too. Better to secure this thing in place while it's fresh in all our minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block is solid; Slrubenstein is not sanctioning Eugenecurry for violation of policy, but was enacting the communities consensus following a full discussion. Since Slr is acting according to that consensus and not on his own judgement then the past history is irrelevant. As it is, consensus is unambiguous and does not require reviewing to ensure Slr was correct in his understanding of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - this is a solid block. Its been discussed here and consensus is very clear. Secondly the matter of being uninvolved is equally clear - Eugenecurry wasn't being sanctioned for attacking/harassing SLR--Cailil 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not think the word "are" applies here. I have not had any dealings with Eugenecurry for over two months, nor he with me; as far as I am concerned that mater was closed long ago. I have been involved in edit conflicts that were considered resolved about twelve hours afte the last contenious edit; in my experience I have never seen anyone give or ask for more than 36 hours to see if a conflict really had ended. Two months? You know, it is not like either of us were on vacation! Is there any editor here who seriously considers a conflict ongoing when both editors have continued to edit Misplaced Pages, and a range of articles, for two months, without any contlict? As far as I am concernded my last interaction with Curry could have been a year ago!

No administrator should block someone for personal reasons; it should only be a block that is called for by policy or represents th will o the community. I explained the rationale for my action, and so far no one has found fault with it. And I see a strong consensus here for a community ban.

The reason this system works - is widely agreed to be fair - is that any admin can undo a block at any time. All it takes is one admin who considers the rationale for the block wrong, or who does not agree there is community support. So I view my block in this case exactly as I would view it in any other case. I am no different from LessHearVanU in this regard. Does any administrator think that my rationale for blocking is wrong? Does anyone doubt community support? Then unblock, by all means! I see no other point in further discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea that I'm making too much out of this, and I am not as familiar with blocking policy and practices as most of the editors contributing to this thread probably are. I think a conflict over something as personal as talk of anti-semitism means it's going to be problematic for either party to block the other for a long while. That was a very serious, very emotional conflict. Personally, I can still get angry over matters less offensive after many more than two months. Is that a case of being slower to heal than most? Maybe. But I was actually talking about a conflict of interest in the subject area. Your last edit in the subject area was here on June 16 at Talk:Jesus. The conflict in the previous complaint was at Christ myth theory. Am I misreading Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. at WP:BLOCK? If so, I'd be happy to withdraw my objection. Personally, I still see a conflict of interest on both counts mentioned above and I think it looks bad (and it's a bad example for other admins to follow), but my main concern is practical, and if more editors still think the block is unlikely to be reversed, let's mark this resolved again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I support the indef block, and oppose the reversal of it, for reasons already articulated in detail above by others. I, for one, see no consensus on this page for such a reversal. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see it either. I restored the "resolved" check at the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur both with the block and that this is now resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm too late to the party, but I'll just note that I think this was badly handled. I see an editor who did a stupid thing (haven't read the page, so working with limited information). That stupid act was compounded by disingenuous explanation, but after viewing a consensus that the act was unwise, repeatedly agreed to move on. I thought a block was supposed to be preventative not punitive. I see nothing in the editor's responses that even hints at refusal to accept the community decision. Looks to me like "We don't like him, so he's blocked." What did I miss? (Feel free to respond to my Talk Page if this isn't the place to discuss it.)--SPhilbrickT 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not impressed with the way this was handled. I'm not sure he was a net positive, but I'd like to see people who are less involved do this. (I'm not watchlisting this page). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Eugeneacurry

See here. Please discuss. I've not read the original content and haven't formed an opinion myself, but the request, on its face, would seem to merit discussion.  Sandstein  20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• If it were me, I'd decline the request without a moment's hesitation. "I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Misplaced Pages"—in the unblock request itself (!)—is prima facie evidence that he just doesn't get what the issue is here. – iridescent 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• He seems reasonably contrite and shows some evidence of fruitful introspection... especially after the wife apparently told him he was out of line. Consider giving him another chance and keeping him on a short leash. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I was trying to assess this unblock request before it was put on hold by digging into the various histories, and finally decided that I just could not make up my mind. I cannot assess the original content of what might have been an attack page, of course, since it's not available to me. I agree with User:Iridescent above, in that I am finding it hard to believe that anyone would think that such an article was a reasonable contribution; it just seems to me disingenuous to be suggesting that this could somehow be a "valuable addition" in the circumstances, and a bit Wikilawyerish. At the same time I agree with User:Baseball Bugs above that he seems "reasonably contrite and shows some evidence of fruitful introspection". He has a history of contentious edits and a confrontational attitude that seems to not serve him well here; he also has a history of scholarly contribution. Given his history, I find it hard to believe that we are not going to be back here in another few months going through a similar discussion if he decides to reclaim the moral high ground on some other issue with some other editor. My practical view is that this user's ability to monopolize the time of other editors/admins that could and should be used in fruitful contribution now outweighs any potential benefits of his contribution. However, I am trying hard to assume good faith here; perhaps the "short leash" mentioned above, combined with (I suggest) a ban on interacting in any way with User:SlimVirgin, might be sufficient to steer the editor back to productive contribution. (It's a pity that we cannot suggest that his wife sit in on his editing.) I apologize for being unable to make up my mind one way or the other and thus being relatively useless; I have outlined my thoughts in some detail because I hope they may be useful to others, even if only to provide something with which to disagree. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be very concerned to see an editor unblocked after creating an article about another editor he was in conflict with. This is part of a pattern with Eugene of seeing Misplaced Pages as a battleground, with sources and editors he disagrees with being personally attacked. I've warned him in the past about the BLP violations he's posted on talk pages, e.g. I warned him here after he posted links on the talk page to disparaging photographs of theologian Robert M. Price, one of sources who suggest Jesus may not have existed (see Christ myth theory), and someone Eugene strongly disagrees with. He uploaded another unflattering photograph of Price to use in Price's BLP—see the files for deletion discussion—and Eugene knew that Price was grimacing in the image because he referred to it in the alt text. He also edited the BLP to call Price a "sub-academic," without a source, and edited the dab page about Price's name to remove that Price is a theologian. These are just examples; there are many more. His article about me, which he's now trying to portray as benign, presented a false and damaging claim about me as if it might be true. That he's trying to present this as a helpful creation means he still doesn't see that the encyclopaedia can't be used as a weapon. SlimVirgin 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'd say unblock and keep on a short leash and indef if any problems occur in the near future. I generally agree with Baseball Bugs here. Might be wise to throw in an editing restriction wrt SlimVirgin Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• It appears that Eugene's problems, including those with SV, relate to his WP:OWN issues on Christ myth theory and related articles. Perhaps an unblock with a topic ban on that group of articles would allow him to follow a more productive route? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• His unblock statement indicates he still can't admit the article is actually inappropriate, not just in terms of him being the author but that it's an insult to have a few controversial incidents, in most of which the subject is barely mentioned, form most of a WP article about that person. I'm appalled that he still doesn't admit that. He's admitted the core of the problem about starting the BLP article on SV, and I think he should have realized that it might create off-line harassment for her if anything actually led to her identity, a possibility he couldn't rule out. (I'm not sure he realized any other possible harm would come from it.) Eugeneacurry's past WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is very relevant here. The incident in which he was accused of anti-semitism shows he was not, I think, really being anti-semitic (there was no consensus) but certainly insensitive. Please note the date on my suggestion for him to tone it down and note his response. Not long after that, the battlefield behavior continued. I really just don't know whether or not this editor can help himself. If he's let back, he should first get, at minimum, a three-week block (because I think he's not always honest with himself about his motives and we therefore need to reinforce the memory of this incident) and a months-long ban on editing Christ myth theory and its talk page as well as any BLP is in order. Perhaps there should be some kind of civility restriction. I expect further problems, but also some good editing. I think he has some expertise useful to Misplaced Pages. But overall, I am a bit more comfortable with leaving the indef block in place and having this come up for reconsideration in six months or so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. There's recently been some discussion on the Foundation-L mailing list about the challenges in attracting new editors, particularly women, to participate in Wikimedia projects. This is one of the biggies - the lack of comprehension on the part of some editors that using the project itself as a weapon against a perceived foe is contrary to every principle of this project. It *is* harassment, far more than wikihounding is, because it is purely directed toward a specific individual and has no benefit at all for the encyclopedia. Such behaviour is corrosive and harmful not only to the individual who is the target, but also to the project as a whole. This needs to be a bright line.

  Just as importantly, and no offense to SlimVirgin, but neither she nor her Misplaced Pages persona are notable. The attack page created by Eugeneacurry was a coatrack; most of the references did not say what he attributed to them. It not only fell below our standards for a BLP, it actively contravened just about every editing policy we have. As long as Eugeneacurry believes that is an acceptable way to write an article for our project, he should not be here. Reconsider unblock with conditions in six months. Risker (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep blocked. I find Risker's comments to be a persuasive argument based on a point which I hadn't considered; I agree with this assessment. Again, sorry to have waffled above. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked Risker puts this quite nicely, and frankly I don't think we need someone with this kind of battlefield mentality on this project. AniMate 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Reduce to temporary block Eugene certainly has his own "attitude" that sometimes comes into conflict with[REDACTED] policy. However, the disputes are ephemeral, and Eugene's contributions are lasting and many. He sticks to the sources and amasses vast lists of sources to attempt to demonstrate his views; I myself have gotten just as frustrated as he has at some edits and editors. Was this page a poorly-thought out idea? Sure. Eugene was willing to drop it as he stated himself. Just make it a temporary block, or you'll lose one of wikipedia's best editors. NJMauthor (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Serious repeated policy violation patterns. Also as per Riskers comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Reduce to temporary block per Baseball Bugs and NJMauthor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Temporary block and short leash. I am no stranger to articles that relate to RL religious controversy: I recently copy-edited Jerusalem, which is a hot-button page. It is the result of appalling behaviour when such articles lead to the kind of personal attack page at issue here. However, I do not favour indefs if at all avoidable, because they tend to have bad consequences for the project (i.e., they have deleterious psychological effects and to bounce back on WP—you know what I mean). Better to protect the project from disruption for a stated period and assign someone from Mediation to counsel the user, and then to supervise him if he later returns. That would build in motivation and protection, and is worth trying. If it doesn't work, then probably an indef. Tony (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Blocked In addition to the attack page, Eugene has serious WP:OWN issues, creates a hostile, nasty atmosphere, and has driven off numerous moderate editors in frustration. I would however be content with a temporary block plus topic ban. I think he is too close to the subject matter, too passionate about defending his faith, and thus his judgement is skewed. He cannot see where he crosses the line. I was baffled that he thought comparing mythicists with holocaust deniers was somehow acceptable. In his apology he has difficulty assessing where he was in the wrong, only admitting to a hint of "wrongness" in his motivation (the "giddy little thrill"). I don't think that is good enough. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Eugene, some very well-respected religious scholars have made the same comparison (see here and do a word search for "Holocaust"). In the context of a book or discussion among scholars, I think it comes off as less insensitive. In a heated talk-page discussion, it's a much worse idea, but the context seems to show it wasn't used in an anti-semitic way or in some other way meant to hurt. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Blocked per the request itself which shows no contrition, as Risker points out with good insight. And if you can't learn to be humble in an unblock request, you never will be. As I see it, an unblock request should not include "I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Misplaced Pages." Common sense would indicate continuing the indef block per WP:BATTLE among other established guidelines, and I do not think six months is out of line. (Note: this is the first time I have heard of any of this matter, so I do count as fresh eyes.) Jusdafax 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Seeing as I would still like to escalate this to a community ban, keep blocked. His actions weren't "entirely honourable"? No! They were entirely dishonourable. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is serious enough to merit a community ban. Support block and would support site ban--Cailil 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Blocked - He wrote an article about someone he was in a dispute with and thinks that is ok and wants to be unblocked? Forget it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support the Block I find myself not only unconvinced concerning Eugene's explanation as to exactly why he wrote the article about SlimVirgin, but of the opinion that his agenda here needs to be re-configured if and when he returns, the POV editing on contentious religious topics needs some cooling down time...Modernist (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Since there's, at least, no consensus for an unblock and the blocking admin has also argued against it, I'm declining this unblock request. I agree that the unblock request is less than satisfactory under the circumstances, as explained by some editors above.  Sandstein  04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

I have had a look at this indefinite block of User:Threeafterthree and unless I am missing something it looks a bit severe. I left a comment at User:Fastily's talkpage but he has added a wiki short break comment. I have had some good exchanges with Threeafterthree and looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions for over four and a half years. Is there perhaps another method we could restrict him for a while without complete rejection? User:KeptSouth and User:Tcncv have also commented in a similar vein. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedily overturn block: I agree that this is a far too extreme reaction. I haven't looked in great detail at the edits, but based on the discussion, the edits did not appear particularly severe, the user was never warned as far as I can see, and the user also has an extensive history of making minor constructive edits. Unless I am missing something drastic, I believe this block should be speedily overturned and the user warned. If problems persist, by all means reinstate a block: but a fairly short one. GiftigerWunsch 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your comment "the user was never warned as far as I can see" may have misled some editors. He was warned. Multiple times. He simply prefers -- as is his right -- to delete warnings from his talk page. That may, understandably, have misled you into thinking he was not warned ... but your impression and statement are incorrect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did also take a quick look over the history and didn't see any warnings; could you provide diffs of these warnings? In any case, my intention was not to confuse other editors, and I would hope that anyone commenting on such a serious matter would check for themselves rather than going by what I've observed, which may or may not be correct. Diffs would certainly be helpful to show recent warnings, however. But in any case this doesn't change my view that the indefinite block was overkill. GiftigerWunsch 08:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you could miss them, if you didn't look at his talk page edit history deletions. He removed his warnings from public view. If you look at his deletions, even limiting yourself to warnings he received the very day of his block, the following fairly jump out at you: June 17 warning for deleting talk page contents, June 17 warning, and June 17 final warning. The fact that nobody corrected you on this page suggests to me that nobody noted Three had indeed been warned three times the very same day before he committed his last offense (again deleting the comments of another editor, who disagreed with him, from an article talk page). And all people had to go on was your (good faith) incorrect assertion that he appeared not to have received proper warnings.

Note, as well, that he has been blocked for the same "editing/deleting other editors' talk page comments" before. Certain editors in this discussion have made bald assertions seeking to characterize Three's efforts as otherwise helpful, suggesting that his six blocks don't reflect disruptive activity. But one need only look at his recent post-block behavior to see the opposite is true. And that even prior to his block date, he was warned by other editors for disruptive behavior. As by DD2K on May 17 "Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using (notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations (BLP etc).", by Scjessey on May 17 "Editing the comments of others ... With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. ... selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated" and "Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with", and Dayewalker on May 17 "Scjessey's comment does deal with the criticism section... Picking one comment from a larger section, and then removing it three times seems one-sided. In any case, Scjessey's comments do actually address the article."

Clearly, these comments from just last month reflect an editor who, having been warned and blocked for removing others's comments from talkpages, happily continued his disruptive activity, not just on the date he was blocked, but at other times as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• There was yet a sixth editor who warned Three within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. That editor wrote to Three on May 17: "Advice:- do not touch other editors comments unless there is some massive major issue, if there is not, which is the case in this instance then do not touch them, have a quiet word with the editor and say, keep it on topic mate." The warning editor? Off2riorob--the nom here, who said in his nomination that "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". Curiously, Off2 failed to mention his own warning to Threeafterthree for precisely the same behavior, as well as the other five warnings on precisely the same point that preceded Three's most recent infraction. I'm puzzled.

In short, we have two editors commenting above in a 21-minute period, one incorrectly asserting that Three had not been recently warned, the other saying Three had a constructive edit history while failing to mention the six warnings (including his) to Three in the prior month for the same infractions. And on the basis of only these two highly misleading representations, in a mere 21 minutes, Fences reverted an indef block to a 3-day block.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• This gets uglier and uglier. There was yet a seventh editor who warned Threeafterthree within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. Brendan19 wrote to Three on June 12: "I noticed that one of the five blocks on your log is for ... repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments. Since you recently tried (in vain) to delete my legitimate comment from a talk page I thought I would weigh in here. I agree with the others above who suggest not touching the comments of other editors. It's only going to cause problems for you in the future.".--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is certainly no personal criticism of Fastily, I have had some interaction with this sysop in the past and I have never had an objection with any of his actions that I've seen, but we all make mistakes and I think he acted a little rashly here. GiftigerWunsch 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked for 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is something that Threeafterthree has done before and has been warned about, and 72 hours is an escalation of their recent block of edit warring. An indef block for removing two questionable talk page comments is not a proportional response. Fences&Windows 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Block was proper, and revert was improper. I think the original block was completely deserved . Three has been blocked a number of times before. Included has been a block for precisely the same behavior that he was warned of here, and continued to engage in, vis-a-vis multiple editors on the same day. He is too experienced, and has been warned and blocked too many times, to be excused as a newbie. Or for this to be seen as anything other than intentional callous disregard for the rules of[REDACTED] and intentional disruption of the project -- yet again. This is intolerable behavior from a master edit warrior and ignorer of the rules of wikipedia. Not someone who should be coddled, and not someone who Fences should revert another sysop on in the absence of input from the sysop and fulsome input here (Only 21 minutes of discussion?).

Three has been blocked variously for 24 hours, 48 hours, 55 hours, 1 week, and 1 month prior to Fastily's block. Fences railroaded through a reversal of a highly respected sysop's block with 21 minutes of discussion, without input from the sysop, and dialed it back to 72 hours despite that history of rampant abuse, level of punishment, and continued in-your-face repeat of the same disruptive behavior, after multiple warnings, to multiple editors on the same day. See below, as to Three's block history.

• 21:20, June 17, 2010 Fastily blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)
• 10:32, March 16, 2009 CIreland blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: at Sean Hannity)
• 16:07, November 13, 2008 Tiptoety blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama. Continued disruptive pattern of behavior)
• 6:21, October 27, 2008 Papa November blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Reverting other users' edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period at Sarah Palin)
• 1:31, September 9, 2008 Ice Cold Beer blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR, repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments)
• 19:44, November 20, 2006 Jayjg blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits)
  • I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground before he posted here. My reblock is of course open to review, but by independent parties, not those directly involved in content disputes. I have also posted a note about the Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement at Talk:Helen Thomas. Fences&Windows 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Incivility? Treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground? I'm criticizing you for dialing back another sysop's block, on someone who is a repeat offender, and has been blocked (up to a month) and warned a multitude of times. And that's your response? I'm sorry if you're offended by my questioning your judgment here. But that is not uncivil. Nor is it inappropriate, as your comment suggests. First you take the above actions, and now you compound them by trying to bully an editor who criticizes your actions? Not, I believe, what wp:admin suggests an admin should do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground before he posted here." Note the key word: "before". This was a note to make clear that my warning on your talk page about treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground and for what I saw as incivility was done before you criticised my change of the block and was not done as a retaliation to your criticism; I was not attempting to bully you. Your criticism of me here is of course allowed (though you are an involved editor, so it will hold less weight than the view of uninvolved editors) and I was not trying to suggest that you were attacking me or being uncivil. Fences&Windows 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if your "warning" was unrelated to this, then why are your cluttering this ANI up with reference to it? Second, I don't recall you ever making an appropriate warning to me. Just the opposite. It's yet another example of highly questionable behavior on your part. You -- a sysop -- seek to let off a 6-time blocked editor, who was amply warned multiple times by multiple editors the day of his block -- but at the same time you warn the person who reported him for using the (children, shield your eyes here) word "pup"? That's pretty funny. Third, I think your down-sizing this block from indef to three days, where the editor had half a dozen prior blocks including one for one month, based on only 21 minutes of discussion, is not appropriate. Fourth, only two editors got comments in within those 21 minutes, and one was dead wrong in what he said. That makes your action even more untenable.

Fifth, I see no way to interpret your mention of a "warning" -- likely as baseless as your closing of this discussion was rushed, that is not related to this discussion as anything other than a transparent effort to bully. Very un-wp:admin. Sixth, your posting of the above note followed directly and replied to my criticism of your actions. Your attempt to de-link the two is belied by the timing of my comment, your follow-up comment, and the fact that yours is cast as a reply to mine, directly below mine and indented from it -- which reply is either unrelated (I give you more credit than that) or an effort to bully. Seventh, your effort to deter me from commenting was poor form, as in matters such as these interested parties are notified so that they can provide input. That has the salutary effect of avoiding sysops making decision in 21 minutes of such monumentally different impact with the only input being from two editors, one of whom mis-stated the facts dramatically. This wiki approach of course accords with that of courts of law in the Western world -- we don't say, "we prefer to have evidence from those people who were not witnesses to the scene, and are therefore unlikely to raise actual facts rather than mis-state facts".

In sum, I think your dramatic revision of another sysop's block was not appropriate, was made in a manner consistent with one trying to close off dissent, was based on only two editors' comments--one of which was blatantly incorrect, was followed by your bringing up a likely improper "warning" you placed that is either irrelevant or an attempt to bully me, and which was accompanied by your suggesting you did not want me -- one of the wronged editors -- to comment. What court of law says victims can't testify? For the aforementioned reasons, this has a distinct smell of spoiled fish.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Also note that Fastily has posted to say they are on a wikibreak for several days, or I would have discussed this with them before changing the block. Changing an action is not wheelwarring; reverting my new block without discussion would be. Fences&Windows 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was severe for the edits. I hardly think your description of 3after3 as a master edit warrior is fair either and he does imo attempt to stay within the rules, he is hardly making the wiki wheels drop off. His block log is here, he has only had one 48 hour block in the last eighteen months, to assert that indefinite is appropriate is totally excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled. Put aside for the moment that Three has already been blocked half a dozen times. Including for the same infraction. The longest block being a month. You, Off2, were one of the seven editors who warned him in the month prior to his latest infraction that it was improper for him to delete other peoples' comments on article talk pages. You did this in the midst of a discussion in which others warned Three with regard to the same thing -- so obviously you were aware of the warnings. Yet, rather than mention here that Three was warned by seven different editors, including you, for just this infraction -- in the month prior to his committing it yet again here, leading to his block -- you not only fail to reveal that, but in fact pooh-pooh his disruptive activity? I'm not sure where you are coming from. But IMHO we reach the best result on this page by providing transparency and accuracy.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Like Sox below, your math is off. His last block was 15 months ago- almost breaking his record long time w/out being blocked (21 months), but let's also remember that on 2 separate occasions he has only gone about a month between blocks. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Note also that the last block in that log was over a year ago and all of the blocks have been short-period, for relatively minor offenses (we can't see the circumstances surrounding the 3RR violations without digging into his contribution history, but there is doesn't seem to be any indication that this user is a long-term offender, as I can see many positive contributions in his recent history. I believe that Fences' speedy overturn was appropriate (as I suggested above), and that a 72-hour block period is suitable (changed my mind about the block period, see below). GiftigerWunsch 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have no comment to make at this time about the original block, but reverting an admin action under review at ANI without waiting for a consensus is improper, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) You may have a valid point there, but I think given the circumstances, an indefinite block was essentially complete overkill and given the user's positive history (clearly as well as some degree of negative history), I think that it is appropriate to address that problem immediately before the user is discouraged from ever editing constructively again; this is in accordance with WP:DONOHARM and at the least, I believe WP:IAR can be made to apply here. If consensus overturns the reversal by Fences then fair enough, but in the meantime it seems very extreme. Again, I certainly do not believe that Fastily intended to cause an issue, but I do believe he was a bit hasty with the indefinite block. GiftigerWunsch 22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Reduction in block length to 72 hours. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reduction in block length made after 21 minutes discussion, by 2 editors (one of whom was Off2, the nom, and above voter), with one of those editors dramatically mis-stating the facts of the case (as there were in fact warnings), which was a dramatic departure from indef, to an editor with half a dozen blocks under his belt, including for the same behavior, the longest of which was one month, followed by efforts of the block-reducing-sysop to further chill discussion as otherwise discussed herein.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but I agree with the reduction. Perhaps, under normal circumstances, overturning an admin action under review is improper, but if an admin doles out an *indef* block, and promptly takes a wikibreak, I believe it's the correct course of action. 72 hours will provide enough time for a review and consensus to form. Blocks can then be adjusted again if necessary, although I believe 72 hours will prove to be appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've no problem with the block length reduction. Also, an indef block of an established editor with nothing on their talk page except a template isn't good. (I worded that poorly.) Also, making an indef block on an established user, and leaving nothing on their talk page except a template to explain the block, isn't good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reworded 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the block length reduction, but we should ask Fastily why he chose to block Threeafterthree indefinitely as opposed to a shorter block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This really will not do, all these attempts to undermine an entirely proper block. The time has come to take the next logical step, and block all content editors. In particular, long term editors with established track records of useful contributions should be blocked immediately. Some of those creatures actually expect to be treated with some basic human decency; others have expressed dangerous views, even, gasp, challenging the view of an administrator. This must stop. Pre-emptive action should be taken by blocking wantabe content editors who signal their intention by creating an account. It is from precisely this group that future trouble makers arise. Misplaced Pages doesn't need these people, who seem to think mere content matters, and clearly do not understand that administrators are elected by the RfA, an infallible process which elects the true elect only. It is time to get real and get things back in proportion, restoring to all administrators their rightful glory, and putting an end to those who would question them. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. The encyclopedia is built with content editors; blocking them all would lead to the downfall of the project. If we had no content editors, all of the articles on Misplaced Pages would stay nearly the same, with no new articles added that had significant content in it. That would defeat the purpose of the wiki, block useful constructive editors, cause other editors to retire because of this, discourage newcomers from joining the wiki, and overall produces a bad look of the wiki to the general public if we disallow content editors. If we block the editors all, who are the admins to "govern"? The answer to that question would be "no one", as we would have the rest of the wiki left. Go discuss all about policy if the rest of the wiki wishes to; if we have no content editors, our articles will not be vastly improved if need be, and we will not have lengthy articles about current and important subjects, making the discussion of policy absolutely pointless. Your logic is also flawed: Just because one content editor may have these "dangerous" views does not mean that every content editor would have these views. To summarize: Epipelagic, you are welcome to your ideas, but they seem completely unreasonable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with Epipelagic's edit is that I have no idea which parts are sarcastic and which parts are not. This is why it's generally best to state your views clearly. GiftigerWunsch 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Um, MC10, I believe that was sarcasm (which works really well on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Epipelagic has a point. We should do as he says -- except, that we should unblock immediately (oh, let's say after 20 minutes of discussion) all editors who have at least half a dozen blocks against them, ranging in time up to one month. In the face of the facts (annoying as they may be), let's ignore them, and knight him a "productive editor". Surely, that will counter-act the annoying fact of his multiple blocks, and umpteen warnings -- at the very least, it may confuse other editors, who take us at our word, and are happy to ignore the facts. It is certain that only by having these useful souls doing their good deeds that Misplaced Pages can hope to approximate the goals of some. Any editors with fewer than six blocks, and who have not been blocked for up to a month, should -- as suggested by Epipelagic -- be warned and/or blocked immediately, and told that their views at this review are quite unwelcome -- as they, due to their involvement, may actually know something about the matter, which of course could be discomfiting if they were to share it with others. And oh yes -- let's characterize their complaints as to the deletion of multiple editors comments on article talk pages a mere "content dispute" ... we must remember to confuse the masses.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment SNOW close of this conversation since rob brought it forth and is alright with the 72 hour block. I don't think anyone is arguing that a block should happen here, only the time frame. Since that's been changed, let's move on. Three is on thin ice but hasn't cracked through quite yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Given the circumstances and involvement of the only editor who is opposing the decision to reduce the block, as well as the clear support for the reduction, I believe this can now be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Epeefleche is clearly adamant in defending the indefinite block, but given that he was heavily involved in the most recent incident and the only argument he's provided is that it was reduced after a short consensus discussion, I think the much clearer, not now longer consensus discussion in favour of the reduction is evidence enough that his reasons for opposing the reduction are not per policy. GiftigerWunsch 08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If Epipelagic's edit was sarcastic, well, it didn't help much. Sarcasm is so easily detected on the Internet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was sarcasm. This is another one of Epipelagic's comments. My fault that I took his comment too seriously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame the timing is such that Fastily is not here to participate. He does good work, and I had hoped this could be resolved with much less drama. There was much history that could indicate that Threeafterthree was a long term disruptive influence, so I can see how Fastily could conclude that an indef block might be appropriate. I, on the other end of the spectrum, interpreted the facts differently and chose not to block. Consensus seems to be somewhere in-between. I think it best to treat this as a case of reasonable people disagree, but the system still works. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment An indef block, absent consensus for a ban, plus a wikibreak template, is a de facto admission by the blocking admin that someone else may have to reexamine the block. A block log that's been clean for 18 months is a good sign that simply escalating past block lengths is probably not the best solution. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I expect that anytime a sysop goes on wikibreak he believes that his colleagues will pick up in his absence. I don't think that a 21-minute review, including comments by two editors, one of whom was completely incorrect -- and thereupon mislead everyone else -- as to whether Three had been warned, leading to a revision of an indef block to a 3-day block, for an editor who has already been blocked half a dozen times, including for the same violation, and for up to one month, is appropriate. The ram-rod nature of the timing in reverting sysop action suggests to me at least that the sysop was seeking to chill conversation. Poor form -- even AfDs go on for a week; 21 minutes, in the absence of something extraordinary where no judgment is involved, has an odor that is not a pleasant one. We on this page have people being blocked for three months for their first violation. For this fellow's sixth, we dial it back from indef to time served? Perhaps there was some confusion by one of the three editors who were on top of the matter enough to get their comments in within the 21-minute period, who indicated that as best he could see there were no warnings. That was -- though I am certain a good faith comment -- entirely false and misleading to others, as the editor had received a number of warnings, but simply deleted them (explaining why the editor making the statement was confused). 72 hours is, given the many blocks I've seen meted out on this page even this month, way out of line with standar wiki practice that I have observed. There is a wide span between 72 hours and indef. That such a short timeframe should be applied, reverting another sysop, within a 21 minute period in an apparent effort to avoid discussion makes the reverting sysops choice of "term" especially dubious in my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could talk all day and all night and there would be no support for an indefinite block for this issue. I see you are still objecting to the reduction... I see you mention poor form and an unpleasant odor regarding the reduction but I also see other issues, Fastily after the block left a message on your talkpage letting you know about the block and requesting your help when the shit storm starts..Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. Thanks, .you then (I assume) saw that it was wrong of Fastily to put the request for help to defend the block on your talkpage and you trimmed this part of his comment Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. and you then added your battlefield style reply of Thanks. One down; it's a start. .. all in all a dubious exchange at best, you were warned quite rightly for the one down battle-fielding comment by the Administrator that you are complaining about still now and imo you should have a look round and see that there is no support for a longer block. I don't think we have looked at Fastily's comment yet but he was clearly expecting hell to break out and was preemptively requesting your assistance to defend his poor block. In some cases the shit storm you imagine can be the boomerang coming back. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prognostication that there would be no support for the action taken by sysop Fastily, in indef blocking a six-time repeat offender who engages in continued disruptive activity in the wake of multiple warnings by more than one editor.

I'm curious -- you were well aware that the editor here had been warned three times, the day of his block. Inasmuch as you referred to the discussions detailing the warnings yourself, elsewhere. Why then did you fail to correct the above mistaken statement, supporting your nom here and directly below your comment, that said the opposite? I'm of course certain that you are seeking to get to the correct NPOV result here, but I'm struggling to understand why then you would let that clear misstatement stand.

As to the banning of editors who are blocked six times for disruptive behavior, and yet continue it -- yes, I believe that that is a good thing. And a start. Clearly, given the level of disruption on wikipedia, and support for certain flagrant repeat offenders who engage in further disruption after receiving three same-day warnings, it is not the entire solution ... but it is a start.

BTW, I might add -- that while I believe that an indef block (though I view it as appropriate under these circumstances) is a length that can be legitimately discussed, I think that a reduction to three days is way out of bounds. I note that your first comment was with regard to discussing the block length. I've no problem with that. I believe, however, that three days is unduly short for a six-time repeat offender, previously blocked for the same behavior, who has received three warnings the day of his fourth same-day violation leading to his ban. I expect that those of us who have spent time on[REDACTED] can quickly see how against-the-norm that time period is; on this page, this week, we have banned first-time offenders for one month. Three days? Doesn't make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering YOU were the one who warned him, you might wish to retract that part of your statement (lest you appear hypocritical). His last block was 18 months ago, perhaps instead of sitting here shit-stirring you could wait for the blocking admin to return? Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your math, Sox. His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me?--Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the editors who warned him. I'm happy to hear what the blocking admin has to say upon his return.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on the merits of the block, but what's up with Fastily disappearing right after performing controversial actions using his admin tools? This is the second time this month his actions have been called into question at this board, and the second time he's gone on wikibreak. AniMate 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly many on this page would agree that it would have been better had he been around to discuss his block. Perhaps it might have forestalled his action being reduced to such an incredible extent, on the basis of only 21 minutes of discussion (discussion notable in that it was marked by factual error). Perhaps not.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me both sides here have had their say after raising some reasonable points. I would have to add that, as noted, a three day block seems too short... I have always found Fastily to be a reasonable sort - for an admin ;) - and also look forward to Fastily's return to get some closure. I respectfully suggest to all parties that unless there is further new information that we wait for that to happen, and refrain from further questionable language. Jusdafax 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Animate , I remembered myself when this issue came to my attention and I thought user was only recently here for the removal of his rollback rights and now heres here again. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I would like to add my two cents. I have noticed a disruptive pattern of editing from 3after3 for some time now and his block log reflects it. He has a long history of antagonizing people and I recently fell victim to it when he deleted my comments from a talk page. Here is the diff of the message I left on his talk page (which he also deleted). How many blocks does it take for this guy to learn a lesson?--Brendan19 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I won't pretend I am entirely uninvolved, since I was quoted here admonishing the editor for deleting other editors talk page comments, but there was more than one misstep here, in my humble opinion. First, I respect both admins in this issue(Fastily and Fences and windows). Both are good and trusted admins. The problem here, as I see it, is that people are misinterpreting an indefinite block. An indefinite block does not mean "forever". At least not in all cases. It means the editor is blocked until they convince a sysop that they will no longer disrupt Misplaced Pages in the manner they were blocked for. Only after an admin in convinced, and discusses this with the blocking admin, should that editor be unblocked. I don't know if User:Threeafterthree has demonstrated that he understands that deleting other editors comments, especially during contentious discussions, is not to be tolerated. And some of the excuses here make it seem as if User:Threeafterthree is being endorsed for deleting comments from other editors. It's not. This should have been job number one before any reduction. I do see that Rob and FW have made it clear that it is not acceptable afterwards, and think that this is "handled" now, but just think it should have been done first, before the reduction. Anyway, that's my tow cents. Dave Dial (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I find the inherent lack of assumption of good faith disturbing - it's the very least I deserve :/ Yes, I really am on vacation - in the wonderful city of San Diego. In regards to the block of Threeafterthree, I blocked indef because I believed that some of the recent behavior by the user had been unacceptable (see diffs provided in the AIV report by Epeefleche) and because this is not the first time Threeafterthree has been blocked for similar infractions. Although Threeafterthree is a great content contributor, I blocked him, regrettably, in the spirit of preventing damage to the project. However, I very much so respect the community's opinions and am more than happy to yield to popular consensus. The original objective of the indef was to get Threeafterthree to stop his unruly behavior in working out the terms for unblock. While my own intentions have been made clear, I would like everyone to know that I have no objection to Fences and windows' block reduction if there is consensus mandating such action. So with that being said, I think I'm going to sign-off and enjoy the rest of my vacation. Best wishes, FASTILY_sock 06:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily, and please enjoy your time in Southern California!

The task before us now is to come to consensus of a block length (though it appears there are some who may think further punishment is unneeded and that we should close this matter, which I very strongly disagree with.) To me, the short version is this: Epeefleche's points, as well as the others who have come forward to complain, seem quite solid, as Threeafterthree has a disturbing repeat pattern of blocks going back to 2006, with mean-spirited edit-warring and talk page comment changing being repeated problems. This user has had more than enough warnings, and clearly has not wanted to learn how to edit within the established rules of Misplaced Pages. Given the statements here and the past history, I'd say that another one-month block is not unreasonable, with some topic bans worth considering. Jusdafax 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jusdafax -- 1 month block, but that applied with time served included. And Fastily must see the Zoo. It's much less impressive than most people say, but it does have some amazing creatures. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the 'time served' proviso, and I hear the Zoo is one of the best in the USA. Also Fastily, if you are into sailing ships the Maritime Museum of San Diego will, uh, float your boat. Jusdafax 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just drive north on US 1 in a convertible. There's nothing quite like it. It's that or Thompson it up and head to Vegas. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good block, Fastily, good choice of vacation hotel (I live nearby) and drop in on Coronado Brewing Company for a great microbrewery/pub within a half-mile, Miguel's for good Mexican food. Take the ferry across the bay for a few bucks, and walk the waterfront. →StaniStani  17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Three Month Block for Threeafterthree. I agree that Three's block should be at least one month (giving him credit for the three days served). However, I think it should be three months, given:

1. His extensive history of prior blocks (including for the same activity as here). As further partial background, see this 2006 AN/I which followed his 1-month block and considered giving Three a permanent block, this August 2007 AN/I by RyanFriesling, this December 2007 RfC on Three, this October 2008 AN/I that led to a 55-hour block, this November 2008 3RR report by the Magnificent Cleaner-keeper that led to a one-week block by Tiptoety, this December 2008 AN/I complaint by Wikidemon, this January 2009 3RR report by Jimintheatl/warning for edit warring, and this February 2009 AN/I by Hans Adler (complaining inter alia about Three "censoring other editors' comments").
2. His longest prior block was already one month.
3. The fact that in the month prior to his latest infraction, Three was (as reflected above) warned directly no fewer than seven times, by seven different editors (including Off2riorob), not to remove others' comments from talk pages. And yet that is precisely what Three did here, yet again, the same day as his most recent warnings.
4. Three's assertion that he is the founder of Misplaced Pages may lead some editors to not report him for his disruptive activity.
5. His effort to attack me for reporting him
6. His continued lack of remorse and failure to "get it", as reflected by him writing this: "95% (I'am obviously not perfect like most folks on this project) of my contributions are contructive and I take offense that that is somehow not the case.".
7. The fact that just yesterday, Three wrote (emphasis added): ""I follow the ANI board, but more for laughs than getting involved, and the amount of total BS/nonsense there is beyond mind boggling. I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable").

His failure to "get it", in the face of repeated blocks, repeated recent warnings, and this discussion, could scarcely be more evident. All of this suggests that a 3-month ban would be appropriate. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to stick with valid points. Point #4 seems like a non-issue IMHO, I'd say joke or philosophical statement as opposed to disruptive. Point 5 I'm not seeing an attack, he pointed something out to the admin, that admin refocused him. Point 6 is a reasonable attempt to defend his overall editing here. Point 7 the 1st two bold parts are the majority opinion of what happens here at ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Block of one to three months. I think 72 hours is too short. Anything between one month and three months seems more appropriate to me, given his long history of unacceptable behavior. --Brendan19 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• The more I look at this case the more I feel that we have a serious problem here. Claiming to be be a founder of Misplaced Pages indicates a serious effort at fraud. I now think a three months block is more like it, and I think this merits even more examination for long-term patterns of abuse. User seems to see himself as some kind of anti-agenda crusader. Jusdafax 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: A look at this users current home page shows a nice, official-looking userbox saying he "founded Misplaced Pages". Could an admin remove it as I'm uncomfortable doing so myself. With all due respect to Cube lurker, I can not view this as a joke. It could have a very chilling and misleading effect on someone. This bogus userbox, coupled with the similar statement at the top of 'Three's' User page that has already been removed today, indicates a clear determination to mislead people he is edit-warring with, in my view. I also have looked at random edits going back the last 4-5 weeks. I see a deep interest in controversial politics, utter determination to have his way and a systemic pattern of violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jusdafax 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I previously supported the reduction to a 72-hour block, but in view of these claims to have founded wikipedia, I am inclined to support the longer, 3-month block suggested by other users and there is serious indication of fraud here; the fact that these survived up until now also suggests that the thus far quite short blocks are not serving their purpose, and it seems unliekly that another short ban will change that. Jusdafax, I removed the userbox as I had overlooked it when I removed his other assertion to being the founder of wikipedia. I'm not an administrator, but I think this is a pretty clear hoax and potentially damaging if these claims manage to mislead new contributors, so I think that this is pretty uncontroversial. GiftigerWunsch 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I haven't followed what happened to trigger this block, but Threeafterthree has been a problematic editor for some time, so a longer block would make sense. He used to make edits that seemed overly focused on Jews. For example, he'd go around removing from bios that people were Jews (see here for several examples), but when the person was in some kind of bother, he'd add that they were Jews (e.g. here). In fairness, he may have done the same thing with other ethnicities, but I don't recall seeing that.

  He also posted at least once as an anon IP, but pretended it wasn't him, again making arguably contentious edits about Jews. This is one IP I remember. He said it was a friend of his, and that he was standing over the friend's shoulder as the latter edited; see this exchange. An example of that IP's slightly worrying editing (given the context of Threeafterthree's editing) was to insist that Leo Frank—an American Jew who was lynched after being accused of rape, apparently falsely—was pardoned later, but had not necessarily been wrongly convicted.

  He'd also get bees in his bonnets—for example, insisting that links in See also be included in the article or removed entirely, which misses the point of the See also section. For a long time he waged a campaign against See also, removing those sections no matter how useful they were, and reverting when people restored them. It got to the point that I knew when his name appeared on an article that there was going to be a problem. SlimVirgin 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Block for three months: this discussion is quite disorganised so I thought I'd make my views clear here. Though I still stand by my original request to speedily overturn the block, which Fences actioned and replaced with a 72-hour block, in light of the newer evidence here, I now feel that a 72-hour block will not be sufficient to discourage the sort of behaviour exhibited by this user which resulted in previous blocks, and I am particularly concerned about his claims on his user page that he is the founder of wikipedia. I think a block for three months will give the user more time to consider why his actions have caused these repeated blocks to be levied against him, as well as protecting[REDACTED] from the continued disruption being caused. GiftigerWunsch 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A block of three months for moving some talkpage comment, give over. The user has had only a single small block in 19 months and you think it is nessesary to protect the[REDACTED] from him for three months, ease up. He is unblocked anyway which is fair enough and lets give him another chance his alleged issues don't seen worthy of what would a totally excessive long block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the continued claim to be the founder of wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If he is the founder I am out of here, I haven't sen it but it must be a joke. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Off2, I recognize you initiated this effort to reduce Three's block. I remain perplexed why you failed to mention that you yourself warned your mate, in the month prior to his latest offense, not to remove editors' talk page comments. Precisely what he was later blocked for here. Could you possibly have thought that less than relevant? And your warning to Three appeared in the middle of a host of other warnings against him for that misbehavior. Surely, you were aware of them as well. Yet, in your many edits on this string, you not only failed to mention Three's misbehavior and many recent warnings, but in addition now fail to see any problem in Three's edits.

In fact, you above characterized his edits as follows: "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". That could of course leave us with the impression that you had disinterestedly reviewed Three's comments, and found nothing amiss--just a constructive editor. But surely you were aware that the opposite was evidenced even within this past month. And certainly you know that Three just yesterday reflected a manifest disregard for not only wikipedia's rules, but others' views of his continued breach of them -- by writing to you that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet, now you pooh-pooh others' sensitivity to Three's repeated violations of[REDACTED] rules. I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He had both a userbox and an explicit statement on his userpage where he claimed in no uncertain terms to be the founder of wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing and damaging for new editors who believe him, and I have a hard time believing that this is a joke: take a look at the diff where I reverted the statement: . There was also a userbox, which I might have accepted as a joke if it wasn't for the separate, explicit statement written as part of his introduction about himself (though even then, the userbox should at least imply that it's not meant to be taken seriously). GiftigerWunsch 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi Folks, Can I please start by apologizing to the community for all the different issues that seem to have been unleashed here. Most importantly, I want to say I do get it and will NEVER touch another user's comment(that is how this all started, right?), period. If I have a problem about a user's comment, I will advise an admin or bring it to one of the notice boards for input. Is that fair? As far as founding Misplaced Pages, that is now removed from my user page and will not return. That was not intended to "intimidate" anybody or trick them. Wow, what else. I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it, over 5 years and 18,000 edits. I wish that was lower, or even zero, but I have tried to learn from those and do better and stay out of "serious" trouble/conflict. I do remove See also listings if they are already linked in the article,but if people revert, I do try to use the talk pages. Jews? I tried to remove ethnicity from 1,000s of bios where it was placed against MOSBIO. I did have a block, my first (a month) almost 4 years back, but have actually worked well with that admin since. This is a start, thank you, --Tom (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that should be the end of this now. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and not be punitive. If says Tom he learned something and won't alter or delete other users comments, that should be that. Let me also state that an indefinite block with a request to be unblocked similar to Tom's above statement would have resulted in the same outcome. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My main concern was with the claim on your talk page that you founded wikipedia, and I am pleased to see that you have specifically addressed this issue and promised not to readd this. I would like to ask, however, why you added this in the first place; I would expect it to be a fairly obvious point that impersonating the founder of[REDACTED] is a fairly serious violation. GiftigerWunsch 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It goes to more about what is allowed on one's user page. Does everything on a user page need to be sourced/accurate? --Tom (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• AgF is a presumption that is rebuttable. Three just yesterday wrote his mate Off2 that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet when I brought to light his complete absence of contrition, one day later--facing a three-month ban--he suddenly says the exact opposite just now? Which Three am I to believe? The circumstances (coupled with Three having of course been blocked numerous times and warned at least 7 times in the prior month for the behavior he continued to engage in) suggest powerfully that Three is simply gaming the system with the result-oriented goal of reducing his impending ban.

Did he have to be blocked more than six times previously to "get the message"? How many is enough? Did he have to be warned by more than seven different editors within the month prior to his latest offense? How many warnings is enough?

There's little room, especially given his honest comments of yesterday, I believe to view this any other way. I'm not arguing for a permanent ban (though there is room to argue for that). But I think that what has been outlined above strongly supports a three-month ban (at minimum).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now. Sure seems to me like you go right back to WP:BATTLE with that question you post ("It goes more to what is allowed...") about your talk page... hardly the effort of someone who feels humbled before the community, as I see it. And in your opening statement you go right to sarcasm with "I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it"... here again, a combative, defiant statement with obvious lack of contrition. If this is your attitude in ANI coming off your latest block, I suggest we go back to discussing a longer one for you, because it appears to me that you still haven't learned a thing. Jusdafax 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax, 1)I was going to remove the user box, but was beaten to the punch and said it should be left off since Misplaced Pages should not be a battleground. I removed another box which could be seen as combative as well, so I do get it. Am I allowed to be a little irked that an editor has been pounding on my block log by pointing it out close to 25 times now in this single section? I think folks get that. I wish we could meet in person since my feelings/contrition are obviously not coming across in my posts/ether, which are not always the most articulate. Also, there really is nothing funny about this since it takes away from improving/working on the project which is what we all want. Do we always agree in lock step? Anyways, if I can anwser or take advice I am open and welcome it. --Tom (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to correct off2riorob and soxwon (see above), but I can see that the correction wasn't noted. 3after3 wasn't blocked 18 or 19 months ago as off and sox suggested. I will say it again...His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me? I would add that I have been on[REDACTED] since 2006 and I've never had a block. I have also edited at contentious articles, so that shouldn't be a factor. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry your right, the last block was 14 or 15 months ago for 48 hrs. So the pattern I see is the the editor improving. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Off2--Ummmm .. your mate Three was warned seven times for the same violation in the past month, yet he engaged in the same misbehavior again, and then followed that up by writing to you yesterday that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Not, perhaps, the sort of "improvement" some of us would hope for.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin’s 21:49, 22 June 2010 post mirrors what was on my mind. Given his track history—and while a 72 hour block certainly seems *pretty*—Misplaced Pages will just get more of the same soon enough after the block expires. A three-month-long block will properly protect the community from what is flat-out, intentional disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• A block, certainly, but a timed one, not an indef, please. I find Fastily's reasons for the indef insufficient. Indefs should be used only in dire circumstances: they often bounce back on the project, as you all know. Tony (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) PS Anger is clearly an issue here, with six blocks, OMG. If admins can stop the block cycle by reducing the user's anger level so that when s/he returns the project is protected, I would applaud that achievement. That is the only lasting solution. Blocks are not working, although a temporary block here is necessary. Tony (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• 3 Month - boy, this is really long to read through. I agree with a number of editors here. Dave Dial, oh, I could list many others. So as not to add to the length of this page, let me just say I agree with those seeking the 3 month block, unless the guy convinces people he won't be driving them crazy anymore. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support 3-month block: I agree that despite what initially appeared to be admission of wrong-doing, I agree with Epeefleche and Jusfadax above, Threeafterthree's comments give me the impression that he is simply playing the system, this being his sixth block, it seems he has learnt that blocks go away if he says he's learnt his lesson. His comments do appear to have immediately returned to being confrontational, and I note also that though he said he won't reinstate the claims that he is the founder of wikipedia, he never did reply when I asked him why he chose to make that claim to begin with. GiftigerWunsch 06:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Per Threeafterthree's comments in this thread It appears like the block has served it's purpose. We have clear indication that he intends to deal with further issues properly. Only time will tell if he follows through, however at this point i'm unconvinced that extending this block is preventative as opposed to punative.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Enough is enough.  – Tommy 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Old memes don't sleep. They wait. --Smashville 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – IronBreww (talk · contribs) blocked indef. GiftigerWunsch 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Erkan 6317 indef'd by EyeSerene. TFOWR 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – FiGhT 12 indef'd by EyeSerene. Userpage deleted. TFOWR 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)