Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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)
Start a new discussion

Metsguy234

Metsguy234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing" [1], as IP 99.225.28.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did [2] earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons = blocked indef. Neil ☎ 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"16:23, 27 November 2006 Metsguy234 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account" However, the contributions don't look like much; some clear vandalism is present, especially in the deleted contributions. All in all, looks like the primary reason for existing is vandalism. If the blocking admin believes he has no good contributions, why weren't his "top" contributions reverted? GRBerry 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Putting Glasscobra's "resolved" comment down here, for the record.Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved|User blocked and contribs reverted.GlassCobra 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Only just noticed this. The latest is that several editors have concerns that this was one of several good-faith, if mostly misguided, responses to the story in The Register about the Durova incident. In this case by an account that was created over a year ago by someone arriving from another wiki and not really doing much here. I presume, as GRBerry points out, that Neil misread the date of the first edit as November 2007, when it was in fact November 2006. Since the story in The Register broke, there has been a steady stream of trolls, socks and good-faith editors turning up on Durov'a talk page. She's effectively been slashdotted. A more diplomatic solution than the "revert, protect, block" method has now been implemented, with a notice at the top of the talk page directing people to a village pump thread. Could I ask those admins who can be, ahem, more hasty with the banhammer, to think in future how actions like that look to outsiders?

See also here and here and here and here and here. Reposting lower down for increased visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and for wider review, the three comments I feel best sum this up are:

"is this really the sign of an account created solely to hassle other users? What I see there is an account created by someone who edits mainly at another wiki (see here), who didn't do much for a year after registering the account here, but recently started editing. Still has a lot to learn, but obviously read about the Durova incident, got upset, posted a few things, and got hit with a banhammer. Indefinitely." - Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring." — Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Wikipedia account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way." - Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that clears up a few misunderstandings. Metsguy did post a few other comments as well, but those seem to have been made in anger, and in light of the above apology, he seems to have calmed down. Friendly advice regarding his other comments should probably be made on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes need acknowledging

No, I'm sorry, the more I look at it, the more the mistakes here need open acknowledgment and apologies. Look at the initial comments here: "Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing"" (Hu12) and "Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons" (Neil). I can accept that Neil misread the date as 2007 instead of 2006, but really, that is a basic error that shouldn't have happened. More concerning is the willingness to jump to conclusions about anyone posting a link to that story in The Register. This reeks of BADSITES culture (zomg! it's an attack story! ban the links!) and a culture of looking for socks around every corner (ironically typified by the very incident the newspaper story covered, how ever inaccurately). Come on guys. Try and think of other ways to handle things before reaching for that banhammer. Take a moment or two to dig a little deeper and check the dates and the clues in the contributions, and remember what it was like to be new around here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dug a little deeper, Clear vandalism is present. More edits to his userspace than wikipedia. Well, except for creating such works as...My Potty and I←Created page with 'I LOVE POTTES I DU' and The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!←Created page with 'ME EAT ME'. and [3]"The END!!!!" [4]"Maybe you shouldn't put pro-wikipedia stuff in the anti-wikipedia article! Morons..." [5]"I am looking into your identity, so don't think you can fly under the radar."... Asks Durova, "Are the allegations in this article true? "[6], then blasts another editor who removed the comment .."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[7]. Obvious harassment/trolling.....New accounts don't behave like this.--Hu12 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I dug a little deeper as well, and I saw all those deleted contributions. What part of "From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions" is it difficult to understand. What part of his apology is it difficult to understand? He's obviously not a new account - because he's learnt his wikimarkup at another wiki and has been lurking here. The Durova story prompted him to de-lurk to express his anger, and we confirm his misunderstandings by hitting him with a banhammer instead of trying to calm him down, educate him and correct his misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is capable of positive contributions. Every troll, every vandal, every sockpuppeteer, is capable of contributing positively. But they choose not to. If Metsguy234 is capable of contributing in a positive manner, perhaps he should have done so here on Wikipedia instead of sticking to a blend of vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, and trolling. However, if you wish to be his enabler, Carcharoth, feel free to unblock him, but you can take the responsibility for his actions. Neil ☎ 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What Apology??...He says on his talk page, " I wanted to know the truth.. I asked a simple question"[8]... but Metsguy234 must have forgotten he previously wrote.."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[9]. ...this part of his apology is not difficult to understand. What he does on wikihow.com has nothing to do with what he's done here. Endorse Neil's block--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked him, as waiting for someone else to do it when I don't mind is a bit pointless. If he goes back to trolling he can be blocked again, and if he doesn't, fine. Neil ☎ 09:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I don't appreciate being called an enabler. Please retract that. I saw an obvious mistake that you made when you said in the block log "account created solely to hassle other users", and I saw someone with experience at another wiki who had the potential to become a productive user here. At the least, a second chance was warranted. An immediate indefinite block as the first block was way too excessive. If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? I may have been overly forceful about this, and I apologise for that, but I was hoping you and Hu would apologise and we could move on, rather than have you both go on the defensive like this and start clutching at straws and continuing to engage in biting behaviour. Hu, the apology was quoted in the section above. Here is a link. Neil, I wish you had waited for me to unblock if you felt you could only leave a terse unblock log reading "On Carcharoth and Wknight94's requests". I waited to give you the chance to do better than that. As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log. And finally, the idea that if you unblock someone you are responsible for their subsequent edits is false. They are still responsible for their own edits and they can still be blocked later if they misbehave. Giving someone a second chance, or unblocking and apologising for a mistake, is not "enabling" and is not taking responsibility for their subsequent edits. You may disagree about the potential there, but please have the courtesy not to call those who disagree with you enablers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't retract describing you as his enabler - this is becoming a prevalent issue on Wikipedia; too many users who have contributed nothing of merit to Wikipedia are almost encouraged to continue to do so by admins willing to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence it will be repaid, over and over and over. That is the definition of enabler - a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it. End result: Wikipedia is overrun by trolls and users (I cannot call them editors) who are here solely to cause trouble, driving good editors away, and they are permitted to carry on by well-meaning admins. I still believe the block was correct, but am happy to respect the consensus opinion, and for Metsguy to be unblocked. I am unsure what else you are looking for here, the matter does seem to be resolved. Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This works both ways, Neil. I can equally say that "a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it" could be applied to you, and I mean that in all seriousness. The problem in this case being the driving away of new editors who, with a bit of encouragement, could become productive editors. His first few edits are clearly experiments. The later deleted edits involved an abortive foray into images. He's explained the "IP outing threat". He's experimented in the sandbox. He imported his user page from another wiki. Made a mixture of minor edits and some questionable removals, and got upset over the Durova incident, but nothing (in my opinion) warranting more than a warning and guidance. I'm currently trying to engage him in dialogue to see if he can be more productive. Why can't you respect that? And no, the matter is not resolved because you have failed to respond to two of the major points I made above:

"If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? [...] As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log."

Since when did we indefinitely block an account with 7 mainspace edits and clear potential because there are "no good contributions"? As long as you continue to leave these questions about your administrative conduct unanswered, no, the matter is not resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Point one - the account may have been created in 2006 but it only really became in use a week or so ago (one edit Nov 06, one in Feb 07, the next was Nov 25 this year). I did not misread the log, I just didn't attach any relevance to it. My one error was using "created" in the block summary - it should have said "being used". I apologise for that. Point two - by all means, show me these good contributions. Not ones that might happen in the future. Now, the account was unblocked hours ago, Metsguy234 is free to begin editing positively if he chooses, and this hand-wringing is pointless. You are invited to file an RFC if you have concerns about my conduct. Neil ☎ 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the creation date goes, I interpret that as someone who is mainly active on another wiki deciding to create an account here but not being very active. My Commons account looks a lot like that. That, along with lurking, accounts, in my eyes, for the "jumping straight in" behaviour. If I jumped straight into a controversial debate at Commons and started getting emotional and asking questions, would I be labelled as an account created "solely to harass other users"? I would hope not. I would hope someone would ask me first where I'd come from and why I seemed so familiar with the issues. You might say "but your contributions are good ones", but that is tantamount to treating established users with a contribution history differently from those with a short and patchy contribution history. ie. Blocking indefinitely because they haven't contributed much. To put that another way, if I, or someone else with a long contribution history, had made the same edits that Metsguy234 did, would you have blocked me or them indefinitely? If not, why did Metsguy234 get blocked indefinitely? It looks like double standards to me. Those with a contribution history too short to reliably judge are blocked indefinitely and not given any chance to prove they can contribute meaningfully, while those with a long contribution history are given more slack as they have "proven" themselves. In other words, a user's first contributions are intensely scrutinised. If they don't meet your standards and they slip up once, it's in the indefinite bin for them. And let's just ignore WP:BITE. I won't file an RFC unless I see a pattern of such blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(the section below was in reply to a section up above before the outdenting)

I'm fine with it, Neil - your frustration is understandable. But what we all need to learn from the Durova case is that far more damage is done by blocking a good editor (User:!!) than by unblocking a bad one. Unblocking not only gives the editor a chance to prove him/herself but gives us a second chance to see if the block was warranted or not. If it was warranted and the editor is truly a troll, we'll simply revert and re-block. No harm done except someone has to click a couple rollback buttons. I'll even check from time to time to see if I should re-block him myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a chasm of difference between Special:Contributions/!! and Special:Contributions/Metsguy234, but I agree with your point on "we can always re-block" (I said as much myself just above). Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't mean to compare !! and Metsguy234 specifically. My point is that it's always safer to unblock because Metsguy234 could turn out to be !! in the future. And if he doesn't, who cares? It's safer to leave 20 trolls temporarily unblocked than to leave one positive contributor permanently blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Will there be so much of a chasm a year from now, though? You can't say what his contributions list will look like in the future, unless you have a crystal ball; and a user who has wiki experience from another site has a very blindingly obvious legitimate reason to be upset about the Durova thing - more reason, even, than most of those of us who have wasted many more bytes on it. And as for the "I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were" comment - to a lot of the people who really DO have fears caused by this issue, some of the actions that have been taken in the aftermath have done nothing less than prove them right; and that comment is clearly stating that. If you express a fear of retaliation and ask about coverups, and the reaction is to (in effect) retaliate and cover things up, what would _you_ think?—Random832 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is misreading the timeline. Metsguy made a post, I removed it. There was no retaliation and no coverup at that point. Metsguy could have just asked me "why did you remove my post?" and I could have explained that it had already been on the page earlier in the day. Metsguy made the choice to post what he did and made it seem as though he had arrived with some pre-formed opinions. Neil evaluated the situation and saw a negative trend-line in the existing contributions and made a decision in the context of Durova's page getting repeatedly hit by less-than-positive contributions all day. Indef doesn't mean forever, Neil never said he would see to it that Metsguy is kept away for life and Metsguy soon enough figured out how to request an unblock. No-one was doing any covering up or retaliating, it was just a normal days work. And if Metsguy is experienced with wiki's, he's not going to be scared away forever. Franamax (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which all sounds fine, until you realise that the initial unblock was declined, and that the unblock log doesn't give a proper reason for unblocking. ie. the admin unblocking chose to stay silent on the propriety of the original block. It really should be mandatory for unblock logs to directly address what was said in the initial block log. As far as removing the links go, it turns out that this was the wrong strategy, and the link at the top of Durova's page to somewhere else, has been a much better strategy. Though I now see the page is semi-protected. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe Neil is addressing the original block reason, indirectly saying he's not convinced he's wrong but isn't standing in the way. (Sorry to Neil if this is wrong). And he has said above that he was wrong to use "created to hassle" instead of "used to hassle". If Metsguy goes on to be a productive editor, then any future review of the block log will result in the conclusion "oh well, he made a mistake at the very start, so what". Also, couldn't you always do a 1-second block and say whatever you want about the previous block? Maybe that's silly though, I dunno.

The link on Durova's page is good, but it took awhile to realise that was the better strategy. And yeah, the page is protected again - you can ask for the discussion to go elsewhere but people can just ignore that and keep on posting away (which seems to be evidence they're not really interested in a discussion anyway). Franamax (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Metsguy234's last contribution was speedy deleted as spam.--Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly because it was spam or because it wasn't? Obviously I think it was a genuine contribution from a baseball fan. I had advised them to merge that content to the article about the company, and I've also pointed this out to the editor who placed the speedy tag at their editor review. They've acknowledged that talking to the author first might have been a better idea before placing the speedy tag. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For gawd's sake, so much drama - I have to agree with Carcharoth in this instance. Let's jump back a couple of years to about July 2005. A new IP address rocked up on the article for a large Australian university and made a rather large edit. It was clearly in breach of WP:COI - its IP traced back to the university, and the edit summary even boldly stated it. The edit itself was also in complete violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR - its author hadn't yet got around to discovering these, although was literate with good grammar and had been a web designer in a past life so Wiki markup wasn't so remarkably incomprehensible. Couple of days later, the same IP makes a substantive alteration to a rival university, pretty much destroying the original article and all but copying their own university's page over it except for changing the names, making various fixes etc. I'm fairly certain that if that was seen today it would have gotten banned right off the mark for vandalism or possibly even sockpuppetry of some hitherto-unknown troubled user who had some interest in higher education in Australia. I mean, the grammar was good, this IP editor knew how to wikilink, and he even used an edit summary. That IP was actually me, and 9 months later I registered an account, and a further 12 months later became an admin. Some users have much less even starts - especially the younger ones, who initially do things they would later look back to regret, sometimes even acquire a block history along the way, and then work with others and become productive, helpful contributors who are an asset to the sub-projects they belong to. Let's not get battle hardened and think everyone we deal with who we can't immediately classify must be a sock or a troll - I have a watchlist with 3,500 items on it and am pleased to see how many IP-address changes and new-user changes are beneficial or at least intended to be (usually correcting my infobox errors, actually - it's like *click diff* "d'oh!" on my part some mornings.) Orderinchaos 07:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Keepscases

For one reason or another, I was directed to the activities of Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:RFA, which is described in some detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110#Keepscases disrupting with nonsense questions. I then I saw User talk:Keepscases#RfA question?, where a particularly inappropriate question was raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heidianddick. I reviewed Keepscases edits and found other inappropriate questions, and I stated on his talk page that "If you continue to disrupt RFAs by asking inane questions, you will be blocked from Wikipedia."

Then this question was brought up to my talk page. And another inquiry into his edits brought up this. For the continued disruption of RFA as well as the extremely inappropriate comment to Sarah, I have indefinitely blocked Keepscases. It has also been suggested that this block be commuted to 48 hours long, but that is why I am bringing this here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Consensus both at RFA talk and at Keepscases' talk page was that his behavior at RFA is not disruptive. —Random832 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how asking someone if they "Edit in the nude", or if they like looking at pictures of men, or asking completely inane questions, is considered "not disruptive". Regardless, I saw that edit to Sarah, and that is unacceptable, in my small opinion. Ariel♥Gold 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor reducing the block to 48 hours. We cannot judge on the basis of his comments whether this fellow is a troll or has merely had a lapse in judgment. If he continues to be a pest, certainly he should be blocked again and for longer. — Dan | talk 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought his comment on my page was quite trollish but I wasn't offended and his RfA questions seem trollish, too, but I think indefinite might be too much for a first block. I agree with Dan and would reduce it to 48 hours and then escalate the blocks if he continues. Sarah 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied. We do not condone acts of immaturity. —Kurykh 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do -- or, rather, if an act is merely one of immaturity, we give a second chance. What we do not condone are acts of trolling. Again, it is not clear yet which this is. — Dan | talk 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page were quite unacceptable. They constitute sexual harassment in most jurisdictions. Whether Sarah was offended is beside the point - if we tolerate this type of thing, we will drive away female editors. I'm happy with a reduced block, but only if understood as a final warning before a ban. Zero tolerance here.--Doc^g 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree entirely, Doc. Sarah 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a block length reduction; A lot of his recent questions are bizarre, but I don't think there was sufficient feedback to tell him to stop making them more inappropriate before he was blocked. My inclination is to reduce to 48 hrs and give him a strict laying down of the law on harrassment versus sillyness. Further "questions" and comments like the last few including Sarah's talk page after warning would warrant further longer blocks. But not indef, now. The size of the hammer is disproportionate to the actions or how they've been percieved by those he directed them at. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Doc and George above. Reduce the block to a week but make it clear that it is a final warning before a total ban. Dreadstar † 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: reduce the block to 48/72/120 hours, give an only/final warning that any more comments like the ones to Sarah will result in an indefinite block and community ban, and politely ask him to engage in discussion at WT:RFA about whether his questions are acceptable or not. Daniel 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this user may be a sock of a banned user. He first appeared making those comments on Dereks1x sockpuppet's RFA. Miranda 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to think this is not his first account, yes, but how do you make the jump from "sock" to "sock of banned user"? Picaroon (t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...might ask a checkuser? I am not a person who has access to any sekrit list. He appeared on a banned user's RFA. Miranda 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to 48h. When it expires I will keep an eye on his contributions for a while. — Dan | talk 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that should he either date another lesbian or leave the toilet seat up then the block should be extended to indefinite? ;) --WebHamster 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So don't laugh. One can't please all the people all the time.--WebHamster 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page, asking if one edits in the nude or looking at images of men is sexual harassment. It doesn't belong here and it's unfair to ask any editor male or female editor to tolerate it. This isn't exactly a long time editor having only approximately 165 edits but in fairness , would support shortening block to one week , one final warning before indef block and ban.--Sandahl 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block 1-week, final-warning, then indefinate ban idea.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Keepscases. This fellow is adamant that there was absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with his comments, going so far as to say "shame on anyone who was offended." I'm tempted to take this as prima facie evidence that the user is ineducable, but will defer to the consensus that he be given one last chance. That's one last chance, not several last last last last last last last chances as is so often the case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to my post at his talk page, before his block. His question at The Transhumanist's RfA was IMHO inappropriately personal... and (what I didn't say at the talk page) inappropriately trolly, as it seemed to me to be baiting. The Transhumanist did well not to rise to the bait. I think this is a newbie who's not got the hang of what is and isn't appropriate here - this is quite an unusual site for anyone used to, say, BBs, and our tolerance for humour is bounded. However, if he continually ignores warnings and worse, argues the case that he was in the right, there's no hope for him. Therefore, I support a block lift, but on condition he understands that at the next similar offense, I would propose a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous block. Keepscases is actually, IMO, a positive influence on RfA; being given an unpredictable and apparently random question, rather than the formulaic "what is your interpretation of BLP/IAR?", is actually a good basis on which to judge a candidate's character, as they are forced to come up with a genuinely individual response. Plus, if a candidate believes one of his questions to be "inappropriately personal" then they have every right to refuse to answer it, and it's unlikely that they'd lose support for doing so. The comments to Sarah could be interpreted vaguely as sexual harassment, but if Sarah herself has not complained, then they should be interpreted (as they were no doubt intended) as a joke; at most, they merit a warning to be more careful with comments in future. This block is yet another example of why sysops should not be trigger-happy with indef blocks, and I only hope that Ryulong hasn't driven another user away through overzealous blocking (it wouldn't be the first time). Walton^One 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller above. Looking at the edits in question, they are borderline -- unlike the recent incident involving Thespian. (The comment about editting in the nude reminded me of the line from "Airplane!".) Assume good faith, & the usual gudieline about biting newbies would direct us to assume a mistake in judgement, rather than intent to harass -- the guy's just trying to inject a little humor. A stern warning here is entirely appropriate, & perhaps a block to make the point; an indef block at this point is overkill. (A second such incident, however, & I give permission to anyone -- especially a female Admin -- to throw the book at him.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of his questions that I missed were inappropriate but I enjoyed the ones I saw. I was disappointed and felt slighted when he didn't show up for my RfA asking about bunions or offering me a shrubbery. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some what late, but I am in agreement with Walton's comments above. I do not feel that block should have occurred here and in general do not feel that this case is being approached with the user being considered in good faith. I also do not think that the user had significant warning before his ban, as pointed out I believe consensus was leaning towards him being able to do so. His comments to Sarah were not appropriate, I do agree, but not deserving of ban. I also agree with Walton on why his questions are worthwhile and feel that he should be allowed to continue to make them. SorryGuy 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note #Keepscases_speaks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible remedy for this

I have drafted a possible solution that would allow this user to be unblocked, and I would like to see what the community thinks about this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbuckner

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

I've blocked Dbuckner (talk · contribs) indefinitely as he's made a legal threat against FT2 by stating that he's contacted animal welfare officials about his conduct on Wikipedia[10]. I've made it clear to him that the minute he retracts this, I am willing to unblock his account. I hope this is just a momentary lapse of judgement and he'll soon be back to editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he is willing to retract the threat. — Save_Us_229 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if he makes it clear that he no longer plans to take this off wiki in any context, then I'll unblock right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear. — Save_Us_229 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I unblocked just after he stated it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He quit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup - [11]. Neil ☎ 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to have made this intention clear before the block. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which leads me to wonder why he was so keen to be unblocked. If I was leaving the wikipedia, I wouldn't worry so much about whether I got blocked. He also seemed to claim he was editing from an IP on WP:IP [12]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

← His blog that was linked says he's taking a break. So he may or may not be back. He probably wants the unblock so that he can come back if he is so inclined. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Dbuckner indefinitely. In an email to me he makes it clear that he has in fact carried out the threat he purported to withdrawn and has posted what interpret as a vicious personal attack with serious legal consequences to a number of what he termed "activist websites". Given that this has gone beyond what can be dealt with on-wiki, I am emailing the Foundation with a summary of events for their review. WjBscribe 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a similar email last night. I support leaving this situation in WJBscribe's hands unless the Foundation staff takes it over from him. My assessment is that well intended but poorly judged comments yesterday pushed the dispute off-site, and we may well have lost one or more productive editors here. I think the damage is likely to be most limited if only one person manages the situation than if several of us are getting in each others way. GRBerry 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN#Outside influence, I agree with WJBscribe's decision. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with GRBerry's comments and have confidence in WJBscribe's efforts to limit the damage. Moral of all this is think before you type, internet comments are immortal. Alice.S 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WJ was right to block. The use of external activist sites and threats of legal action is in my mind an attempt to sway arbcom elections and an act of harassment. 1 != 2 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Throw it at the Office and let them handle it from here. Totally endorse block and totally caution against unblock. Daniel 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you see? This person may get into real life legal issues with the foundation. That's why you gotta be careful what you say on-wiki - you never know who's watching and what actions'll be taken. Block endorsed, as well as ban. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Contacting animal rights organization is hardly a legal threat. This escalated from a concerned user using unmeasured words to a total break of trust. I haven't seen all of it, so I can't say who was in the right, but I can say that Ryan's intervention on WJB's page was harmful, not helpful. Please be more careful next time. Zocky | picture popups 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Zocky, have you seen the policy link I provided? This action was explicitly and immediately bannable. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with that. Note that this started with an on-wiki smear campaign by Dbuckner, to generate moral panic against FT2. Taking it to outside organizations after being told to stop is really not a good thing. >Radiant< 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Secret has gone around striking through all Dbuckner's votes in the election. Was this decided somewhere or can anyone undo it? He was an editor in good standing when he voted, and the reasons for the block are unrelated to the votes she has struck through. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Removing votes per WP:ILIKEIT, is it? Undo by all means, Slim. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

This isn't WP:IDONTLIKE it, WP:AGF, I never dealt with that user before, I noticed that he was blocked indef, and I discounted the vote, last year elections were the same thing, in which a couple of users blocked indef votes were crossed out. Anyways he was disrupting the elections and that was the main reason he was blocked, lets see community consensus before we undo each other. Secret ^account 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone it. As I said elsewhere, Secret, it would be like you voting in a real-life election, getting arrested for shoplifting on the way home, and election officials grabbing your voting slip out of the ballot box as something unworthy. If he was in good standing when he voted, and his loss of that standing is unrelated to those votes, there can't be any reason to strike the votes out. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the people volunteering to clerk the elections asked me about those votes at the time. My opinion was that they should stay - the most problematic one was that of FT2 but Dbuckner struck that one himself. The others were cast by him when a user in good standing and are unrelated to the issue that resulted in my having to take the action I did (and then refer the matter to Jimbo). My only concern is that votes in this election don't have the finality of those posted through a ballot box - users are free to change their mind until voting closes. Dbuckner being unable to edit is unable to withdraw the support of those candidates in the same manner as anyone else. Though he could email me if he finds this situation problematically - he has shown no reluctance to contact me so far... WjBscribe 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As said, I have no opinion on whether he's right about FT2, and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that WJBscribe blocked him unfairly. I was just pointing out that intervening with accusations of harassment and threats of block on another admin's talk page while an excited user is trying to talk to that admin tends to escalate conflicts. That's all. Zocky | picture popups 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My recent block of Goodshoped35110s

I recently blocked Goodshoped35110s for a span of 48 hours. He's become increasingly disruptive, but the nail in this particular coffin was his tagging of an established editor's userpage as a sock of disruptive editor[13] without any evidence whatsoever. I've blocked him to prevent further disruption of the project. Further evidence of his antics can be found on his talk page or, indeed, pretty much any of his contribs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This user has received many second chances and warnings from admins and other established editors to improve his behavior, yet constantly maintains an extremely hostile and standoffish manner, especially with new users(ex. [14]). It's high time he got a time out to think about his future here. GlassCobra 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wholeheartedly endorse this block. He has been causing disruption, and enough is enough. I personally would endorse an even longer block; this user needs time to become familiar with how the English Wikipedia community works, and if he heads the way he is going, I can see an indef block not too far off. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. The sock template was just unacceptable. Jmlk17 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC x 3) I endorse this block as well. Some evidence of his behavior is listed here and here. Lara❤Love 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do like Goodshoped35110s, but I must say his accusation against U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. was quite outrageous, and I believe he has been too aggressive on many occasions. I support this block. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. - Philippe | Talk 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also endorse block. - Manning (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anything positive concerning Goodshoped35110s. He seems to spend more time here than anything, asking for bans, etc. I think he really needs to see what this site is for and not what the metaprocesses are.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He actually spends more time on his userspace, although a WP:TROUTesque reminder a few days ago did lead to improvement...sort of. Of course, his actions here were beyond the pale. —Kurykh 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For those that are curious, here's the trout-smack.[15] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse a temporary block because his recent conduct has been disruptive. Ironic, because he welcomed me to Wikipedia initially. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse, long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. He's received extensive advice and criticism for hasty, flippant judgment, and seems to be primarily concerned with enforcing his own interpretation of the rules - which does not exempt him from compliance. Acroterion _(talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. After the block I would suggest adoption to familiarize him with policy and hopefully, help him become a better editor. Marlith ^T/C 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

...and now he's retired.[16] EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colbert style vandalism on Dane Cook

We appear to have a situation with a commedian asking publically to have weird information added to their page. Dane Cook has apparently asked to have a strange sexual Neoglism added to the project, and specifically credited to him as having created it (assuming that the edits to his article are telling the truth, which I really have no reason to doubt it). Anyway, any additional eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Diff please? All I see is FabyMcschooler OWNing the page, removing anything bad about Cook, and continually puffing the guy up.ThuranX (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

One of those annoyingly circular discussions has started there, to the point of a full page protection:

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"ARRRGH!"

Please help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was common for such web sites to be scientifically peer reviewed, they might have a point. But it isn't. So they don't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried to find a source, came up empty. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing I can offer is that nearly every editor who regularly contributes to that article should get a trout in their stocking. The silliness exhibited by several of them over a range of articles is nearly mind-boggling.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Isotope mostly. I would take out the work nearly in the last sentence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fear I must concur. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Users Otolemur crassicaudatus and Ghanadar galpa

User talk: Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be repeatedly attacking Ghanadar galpa. See here and here. This seems to centre around this AfD, which is proposing the deletion of an article created by Otolemur crassicaudatus about crime against tourists in India. It should be noted that Otolemur crassicaudatus is arguing very heavily for the article to be kept - take a look for yourself. I cannot say whether Ghanadar galpa is innocent, as I haven't had time to look at a number of the diffs cited by Otolemur crassicaudatus, but looking at just one diff (here), there doesn't seem to be any particular provokation. It would be great if an admin could investigate this fully, and take appropriate actions. Cheers, _TheIslander 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[17] seems pretty provocative, well into the range of violating WP:DICK. That's Ghandard galpa's very first post on the AfD, so he came to the AfD for the point of posting that message about OC, not to discuss the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OC has created a large number of these articles that serve little purpose but to bash India. WP:DICK is irrelevant.Bakaman 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Like many editors, OC has produced articles towards their interests and POV. Unlike many editors, however, OC has made articles on viable subjects and done a passable job at creating and sourcing them. Crime against foreigners in India is a perfectly viable subject and a well-cited article, if still far from being a good article--but again, how many articles created on such topics by one editor are really good articles?

WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK have no exceptions. It's not appropriate to come into an AfD and attack an editor, whether or not you disagree with their POV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua disrupting IfD

{{resolved}} How is this resolved? First, one of the user whom it's about places the resolve tag, which is a no-no. Second, the user filing the complaint which this complaint is about somewhat fractured the discussion as a result of this, erm, tagged resolution by starting a subsection, and then you ask him whether "we really need a seperate thread for this?" Well, you give him the impression that this notice he started has been 'resolved' (read: closed) after three responses. Appearances and decorum count, even in this busy bd. Ad. I don't think you correctly linked to the deleted image (you later restored). El_C 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is being disruptive in this IfD discussion. He nominated it as soon as I uploaded it after the prior image was deleted, restored by me (my mistake) and susequently speedied after it became clear that no sensible discussion was possible during that image's extended IfD. Now he nominated Image:DW Fear Her.jpg for the same reason; being "decorative", which is a misnomer. Now he actively disrupts it by pasting one of my arguments into the image's fair use rational, which I reverted (but it's back again, guess who...) This is a bad faith nomination, and this behaviour is disruptive. I would like it speedy closed and Fasach Nua warned. — Edokter • Talk • 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I, along with Edokter, am a member of the Doctor Who Wikiproject, I've closed it as disruptive. Will ^(talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Will. If any of us stepped out of bound, review is welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I try not to use this forum, as I think generally most things can be handled without admin intervention, but could someone take an objective look into these three edits [18] [19] [20] by this user, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do we really need a seperate thread for this?
2. Stop being disruptive.

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate thread is necessary to discuss a non-admin [21] closing Admin incident and speedily closing discussions on blatant fair use violations, it is quite a separate issue from a user's right to object to the use of inappropriate images Fasach Nua (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I personally see nothing wrong with Will's actions. He knows what he is doing. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I also took issues with Neutralhomer placing resolve tags on notices involving himself, but I'm pretty certain (though not positive) I'm not confusing him with Sceptre in this extension. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spectre was once an admin, IIRC, so he knows what he's doing. I'd be more concerned if it were a beginner to Wikipedia closing discussions. However, if the filer is being disruptive with requests then there is every right to close requests by that filer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Always look at the substance. Being a veteran is no indication of being correct. That approach tends towards elitism. El_C 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First is was "decorative", now "blatant fiar use violation"? There is consensus on Wikipedia to allow screenshots, provided it be kept to a minimum (meaning one fair use image per article). However you somehow seem on a crusade to have this particular article get rid of it's screenshot. First with a CSD G4 nomination, now for being "decorative", which is an argument only used for overuse of images on a single page. Both nominations were baseless, and the second one in particular was onle made to make a point. There is nothing wrong with using a single screenshot on an episode article; in fact it is common practice. Then you became disruptive, taunting me into using my "admin powers" when you full know well that I can't, and won't. Fortunately, I'm not the only admin. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I knew anything about the situation beyond screamsheet knowledge, I'd know what to look for in Fasach's contribs. What I'm getting is that someone has a grudge against an image and wants it gone, and has failed in his attempts to do so (because there was no foundation for his attempts), and is backlashing against the user who closed the second discussion as bad-faith. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that this article was fine without this image a couple of hours ago, and now suddenly it is necessary to include it in order to explain some unknown "key element of the plot", yet the uploader justifies it elsewhere on the grounds that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot". I find it unfortunate that User:Sceptre doesen't consider that it is legitimate to discuss if the use of this image is necessary or in wiolation of WP:FU. I would have been happier if an actual admin or someone outside the relevant wikiproject who doesn't have a vested interest took these actions. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have done the same, Fasach, if the nom was disruptive. Asking the other parent to abide a bad-faith nomination doesn't work. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Was the nomination disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I read there and at the image description page, yes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit what I did at the image page was a bit cheeky, and I probably shouldn't have done it, but was the nomination itself disruptive? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(On an aside should we switch this to a talk page?) Fasach Nua (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to be. I also see no reason why the image should be deleted from the page - its fair-use rationale for the article it's in is legitimate, it's irreproducible, and everything else for the image is in order. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that it is there for any reason beyond decoration, I dont believe it in anyway enhances the explanation of the plot, (I can't even see where it is referenced), but I'll leave well alone Fasach Nua (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but is anyone is actually looking at the diffs cited here, before seemingly automatically not-siding with the person with the red-link for a user name whom most of us don't know? Possibly, so I'll start (looking at the diffs): how is citing Wikipedia as a reference makes sense? ^[22] Naturally, it makes more sense to nominate a whole subsets of images for deletion, but to the argument that "Every Doctor Who episode has a screenshot" which is stated in the ref, I say 'every Family Guy episode had a screenshot,' why do we let copyrights paranoia win there and not elsewhere? They should have lost elsewhere, too. There has to be something rational behind why-this-not-that, no? (rhetorical: the answer is no, fair use is entirely arbitrary fiefdoms!) As for closing noticeboards threads that pertain to himself,^[23] regardless of how valid these may be, I had already cautioned Sceptre against doing this. So, that's not a good sign. I guess the most annoying thing for an admin reviewing this is that the original authors of this thread (not the subsection), both here and on the IfD, are just giving us enough background. Would it kill them to give us a link or two, or a sentence or two? Just let us know, then, why do you feel it's POINTy, what are the immediate antecedents behind it? El_C 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get sucked into this, I suspect the combativeness arises out of this discussion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_28#Image:Fear_Her.jpg, there was also a slight disagreement over a fair use image with this uses at [24] [25], beyond that I don't know much more Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are already sucked in, if fact, you started it. The original image is deleted; that should have made everyone happy. But when I uploaded an improved image, with a proper rationale, you nominated it immediately for reasons I can only guess. Your understanding of fair use needs work. You keep removing images from pages, while the images have perfectly good rationales. You still have not properly adressed what is wrong with the fair use rationales provided; you just keep yelling "blatant fair use violation". So unless you can actually provide some valid reasoning, I suggest you refrain from further disrupting Wikipedia. — Edokter • Talk • 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, let IfDs run their course; speedily or otherwise, let an uninvolved admin handle it. El_C 15:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Tom Baker, the "perfectly good rationale" as you put it appears to be no rationale at all Image:Bakert.jpg, I would dispute whether no rationale is perfectly good!

If you want my objection to the other image then it is 3A, "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". I do not believe that the Fear Her article necessitates this image, I can see no contribution beyond asthetics! I think this is the wrong forum to discusss this and I think the idl should have been left open! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking at the Image:Bakert.jpg page again, it explicitly forbids its usage in that article, and in my opinion, that is as far as you are going to get from a "perfectly good rationale" Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've let this go off topic, however summing this up my Wikipedia:Disruptive editing consisted of:

• Removing a fair use image from an article, when the image had no rationale for inclusion there Image:Bakert.jpg
• Listing a previously deleted image for deletion, as the user was circumventing policy, and unwilling to go to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Listing a FU image at idl as I did not feel it was necessary Image:DW Fear Her.jpg, as it wasn't necessitated a few hours prior Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the completely disruptive edit to the image page. Will ^(talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Last warning

Fasach Nua, your disruptive behaviour stops now. If you see an error in a fair use rationale, you either explain what the error is, or better yet, fix it yourself. Reasons like "unnecessary", "decorative" and "blatant fair use violation" are not valid reasons for removal/nomination. Simply removing the image (as you did with Tom Baker) and nominating images for deletion without valid reasoning only demonstrates that your intentions are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. You will be blocked if you continue this fruitless crusade. — Edokter • Talk • 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jjk82 (talk · contribs)

Right after relieved from the recent blocking on South Korea article, Jjk82 began to commit the exactly same disruptive revisions on the article. As one of the administrator, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim, has already agreed, most Jjk82's revisions on various articles-related to South Korea are very like to be POV (Please check my talk to see his comments). Regardless of series of warnings issued previously, Jjk82 continues his own journey in Wikipedia. Please remember that the main reason of blocking South Korea artcle was due to violation of 3RR, caused by irresponsible reversion to the previous diputable status by Sennen goroshi , which has lead to inevitable reversion that resulted in 3RR violation. I still do believe self-purification system in Wikipedia works well. Regardless of uneven numbers of administrators in terms of their fatherlands, I hope that doesn't makes biased decisions when disputes occur. It looks that mere continuous warnings is in vain and ineffective to Jjk82.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you wish for us to do about this matter, specifically? You seem to expect familiarity with it, which you probably shouldn't. El_C 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can admins review the past case which was mixed up with other report and got no comment from admins? I paste it here. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#Vandalism and incivility. I also strongly believe the users, Keyngez (talk · contribs) and Fightingforever (talk · contribs) are sock puppets of User:Jjk82 per his/her obsession with Korean environment and dog meats, education and so forth.--Appletrees (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [26], [27], [28] and his activities on Japanese environment [29]

Vandalized articles and notable comments by Jjk82

User:Jjk82 added many false information and irrelevant information to eight Korean related articles in a row. He claimed that Korea is very dirty place and not good for English teachers working there, so he inserted seemingly formal citations into the articles. However, everything turned out that the external links and references are duplicated bogus links. As I was following citation links, it went to another wiki pages repeatedly. It was like a labyrinth. In addition, the list of the English private institutes at South Korea, hagwon he added for his allegation, can be a serious legal problem for his sake. Therefore, I restored some of the 8 articles from his vandalism to the last revision and removed the possible legal problems. He put redundant texts regarding Korean eating dog meat to Korea and South Korea articles. 1. Korea: [30] South Korea can be a downright dirty place. South Korea was classified as a “developing country” and with that, wasn’t required to reduce cardon dioxide emissions. Many Koreans view people of darker skin (such as South-East Asians) as inferior. Note: He added a very long popular cuisine subcat. as listing all kinds of dogmeat from two existing articles. Korean cuisine, Dog meat 2. South Korea: [31] Korean environment as same as the above. This was partly due to the destruction of much of the country's infrastructure during the Korean War; however, the primary cause was that it didn't open up to the world and embrace new ideas and technology until the 1950's. Because of this, Korea has been called "The Hermit Kingdom At present, the Korean workforce is terribly inefficient. Koreans work more hours than any other country, but Koreans are far from the wealthiest - they are a disappointing 28th. Korea is not an egalitarian society; one is either of a higher or a lower status than other people. How do foreigners fit into this scheme? Because of the lack of higher level education, studying abroad has become the norm. For every foreign student who comes to Korea for university The Republic of Korea is ranked the 12th in military strength. 3. Tourism in South Korea: [32] Despite these attractions, Korean tourism has a long way to go. Korea’s “travel account deficit” amounted to $8.49 billion. Simply put, the Korean tourist industry is not very competitive. /and deleted passages with citations. 4. T-50 Golden Eagle 5. LG Electronics:[33] , 6. Samsung Electronics Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, were given poor marks (both 4 out of 10) from Greenpeace because of their total lack of environmental responsibility. More specifically, the companies lack a comprehensive product take back program, 7. Teaching English as a foreign language: [34] South Korea, However, there are many dodgy schools, so do be careful. 8. Hagwon: [35] black list: Schools you should avoid working for. Teaching English in Korea is really a minefield of potential disasters. Read the warning from the U.S. Department of State regarding teaching English in Korea: "Note" listed actual names of the hagwon. If people to whom concern find out this, he can get in legal trouble.

User Stco23

User:Stco23 has been temp blocked twice for being uncivil with other editors, but he does not seem to have learned anything from either block. He continues to harrass and make rude remarks to any editor that either edits an image he has uploaded or removes images he's added to articles. I have had the unfortunate luck to have to deal with him twice now over images in the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Garfield and Friends articles. He had uploaded individual images of all of the DVD sets and wanted every last one in the article, which is inappropriate and excessive. While his exchanges haven't degraded to the level they were at the time of his last block, I'm certain it is only a matter of time. Our "discussion" of the Chip N Dale issue included User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Chip_N_Dale_Rescue_Rangers, User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23 and User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23_2. Borderline, but livable. However, he also did this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collectonian (though apparently he didn't quite do it right or something). As a side note, I deleted nothing (not an admin, of course), the individual DVD releases were deleted as part of an AfD along with the season pages. He also went to other users complaining [36] (dif includes my response warning him about borderline meat puppetry), [37] (in an unrelated CfD), and [38] (another user). Some responded as seen at [39], again trying to correct and education. When one of the images was CSDed for non-fair use, he reverted[40] as "not being legal" then when another editor corrected his inappropriate removal, he told the editor to stay out of it [41].

I let that one go, trying to be somewhat patient and understanding and hoping he might learn. Alas, no. I started cleaning up the Garfield and Friends article to bring it inline with the TV MOS. The DVD section had three images, I removed all but one (leaving one that one in an attempt at early compromise because I suspected what was coming). First, he undid. I reverted and explained. He then began the barrage of messages to my talk page. He later removed them but I put them back for easier viewing[42]. During one of his messages, he left the lovely edit summary of "I hate you" [43]. When he realized he wouldn't get his way, again, he removed all of the Garfields images and CSDed them, along with the Chip 'n Dale images. He has since "changed his mind."

I nominated the Garfield and Friends template for deletion (unnecessary) and he requested it be kept to protect his images [44]. He's done the same for other template and category deletions, and use the protection of "his" images as rationale for edit warring and harrassing other editors. He's also given the same reason in a suggested (and needed) merge [45].

This editor seems to have some WP:OWNership issues over images and throws a nasty temper tantrum if they are not kept in articles, no matter how many times he's referred to the image policies and guidelines. While he's behaving marginally better since his last block, it is extremely frustrating for other editors trying to clean up TV articles. Having to deal with his ugly/nice back and forth on image issues and his constant barrage of complaints and attempts to get his way so he can keep his images has likely chased off other editors before.

Honestly not sure what should be done, but after round two with him, I'd like to avoid another round. Its likely, though, since I am in the TV project and actively cleaning up articles where I can. So some assistance would be welcome.Collectonian (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for many of the thing I said. I did do some edits but then I changed my mind about them. I decided to put the two images into one, and I thought it would be a good idea. I did get out of hand, but I calmed down and thought it over. I know that sometimes I get out of hand, but then I think it over. By the way I was only blocked once even though it showes I was blocked twice. I don't deserve to be blocked even though I do have problems with my temper and I need to control it. Collectionian I'm sorry. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That thing I did not want to be deleted was not because of her, It was because I thought it would be better to keep it because I thought that if it stayed, it would keep those articles at bay. It was the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers template and not Garfield and Friends.--Stco23 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am getting rid of two of the images that I uploaded a long time ago since I put both of them together to make one image. I own what I took, but the fox compies own the rights to them. I put them together, and resize them to fit the rules. I should have a long time ago, put the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers images together. I know the rules and I am going to stick by them at all cost. I will not haress anyone again and I will talk to people reasonable and respectful. I might be different from other people and might not know how to do some stuff on this site, but I will follow the rules.--Stco23 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your apologies here and on my talk page, I noticed you are still going around to other editors and complaining [46], where among other things you claimed that you "tried to be nice" but that I ruined it? I also see you are now trying to use your autism as an excuse for your behavior? I have a hard time finding your profuse apologies to be sincere when you are doing such things. Collectonian (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash

I am nearing the end of my rope with V-Dash (talk · contribs), who appears to simply be here to start drama. His talk page, for the past few days, has just been he and I going back and forth, and all I am seeing from him is a MPOV and tendentious editing, deliberately ignoring anything everyone says to him. He also posted a link to an attack blog he ran (since removed) and proceeded to process-wonk about it after I removed it as an attack site.

I first got involved with him when I blocked him for edit-warring on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and that was when I realized he had a fan club of sorts who were making impostor accounts. Although I blocked all the imp accounts, he returned, after his block ended, to starting the same argument that had been soundly defeated on D&P's talk page. After I engaged him on another subject on the talk page, I moved the majority of that section to his talk page, where he and I have been debating for the past few days.

Just now, an anon who has been recent on his talk page, calling himself the "Wandering hero", posted links to a couple GameFAQs forums as "PROOF" that V-Dash isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Looking at the links, I'm starting to agree with him, and have come here today requesting advice on the matter. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection. Way to go against your word Jeske. I thought GameFAQs links to the msg boards weren't considered proof? You said so yourself. Anyhow, you did remove the link, but I never reposted it again. You are the one who started the debate on my user page. So don't even object to it.V-Dash (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He called it proof, I am quoting him. I'm asking for advice because I'm starting to see very bad signs coming from you that generally gets users indef-blocks. And the forums he linked to, assuming that your username there is what I think it is, paint a picture akin to the Mona Lisa. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And another thing? Don't claim admin abuse until you actually know what admin abuse is. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, because I don't remember myself editing any articles lately other than 2 where one had someone vandalize it and the other had false info on it. Besides, you said unofficial links do not count as proof. And yes, I do know what admin abuse is.V-Dash (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you misapplying the label? I have not - and will not - block(ed) you. If anything, I have been biased towards you. And this is precisely what I stated on the talk page: You completely disregarded the majority of my last statement and cherry-picked the issue you want to address. And this is not about your article editing; this is about your behavior en generale. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is her idea, not mine...

Anyhow, Jeske, how am I cherrypicking on something? This is all about my idea of DnD. Sure, I called it a board game, but did I alter the article? I did not. This is why I never get involved with fans of popular media...except wrestling.V-Dash (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am male, thank you very much, and this is less about your idea of D&D than it is about your behavior on D&P's talk before my one-week block of you for editwarring and subsequently afterwards on same and on your TP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And V-Dash, creating a thread here is by no means admin abuse. At first, your edits could have simply been reverted as forum posts aren't reliable sources. However it seems your editing has become disruptive, which could result in a block. And BTW Jeske, you said you did already block him, though for a different reason. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him last month for a 3RR violation on Diamond and Pearl (I also blocked Placebo Effect for the same edit-war). At that time I did not know whom he was. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Checking his block log, I assume we're referring to the most recent one. Also, you don't seem to be the only one expressing concern; of the three other admins who blocked him, Stephen also noticed harassment. So V-Dash, please refrain from disruptive editing. If you don't, you get blocked. Simple. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:MelicansMatkin has also had concerns with V-Dash, AFAIK. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I honestly don't see what Jeske is going on about. Anyhow, I haven't even touched the D/P page since you blocked me. Heck, I barely go there now.V-Dash (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not on your behavior there; it is on your behavior towards other users. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting that you're a sockpuppet account? You did say users and users = more than one person.V-Dash (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can guarantee you CheckUser on me, Melicans Matkin, and the Placebo Effect will come back "Unrelated". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When he says users, I believe he means that you have been rude to more than one person. Nothing Jeske said could be taken as proof that he's a sock. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, when did I ever mention does two? Guilty conscience?V-Dash (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Users with whom User:V-Dash has had a negative conduct towards, whether on an article's talk page, or his own talk page: Jéské, User:The Placebo Effect, User:Urutapu, User:MelicansMatkin. I feel it necessary to mention that at this point in time, the user seems to starting arguments simply for the purpose of causing disruption. The user also appears to ignore Consensus, and refuses to accept explanations from no less than four different editors on the same topic.

V-Dash, accusing a member of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no proof whatsoever is a very serious allegation. Jéské never mentioned anything that could construe his being a sockpuppet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling of disruption and harassment here. I'd endorse a block. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't do the deed (I'm in dispute with him); another admin will have to give the permanent vacation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are you going to call the cops for Jeske calling me a sockpuppet? Besides, this was not my idea. He posted the link on my talk page. As for the other users, I haven't even seen them recently.V-Dash (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a sockpuppet, but you have just accused me of Wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. So the next thing you'll accuse me of is WikiPwning?V-Dash (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't make the accusation I did above lightly. What little good faith I had in you vanished the moment you made that statement. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict): otherwise, you wouldn't be following me throughout Wikipedia - sounds like a Wikistalking accusation to me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you be quiet - at this point, your behavior is only sending you further beyond the point of no return. I am going to contact another admin to look at this thread and the ones on your userpage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE) I have contacted Alison about this thread and the ones on V-Dash's page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin yourself? Or would it look like a bad blimish on your account if you blocked me for the arguments you started? Btw, this is your thread that you linked on MY talk page.V-Dash (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You initially started the exchange at Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl - Nice try. And because I'm the one debating you on that topic and others, I couldn't block anyhow. Nor could the Placebo Effect (she's editwarred with you). Alison, however, can, and I invited her to simply look at this thread and all the threads on your talk page - nothing more. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you powers were taken away? Is this why you've started those debates with me? Btw, I did not do anythingf to the D/P page.V-Dash (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides going against consensus, arguing for the sake of arguing, and causing pointless diruption because every other editor on the page disagreed with you? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have my administrator powers, V-Dash, and it was your post that was simply added there to fan the flames (diff) that prompted that debate. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw V-Dash's name, I believe it involved The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. It had gotten to the point where he was calling people 'cocksuckers', if I remember correctly. In fact, I think I was the one who reported him. I don't know what he's done this time, but he has a history of extreme and often outright vulgar rudeness if he doesn't get his way. HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Diruption? You mean disruption? So you want someone else to block me to keep me from accusing you of admin abuse?V-Dash (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep going the way you're going and you will be blocked without fanfare. And HalfShadow, he's been trolling on his userpage and here, and has accused me of being a sockpuppeteer and of wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Half, that's a big offense. Jeske, how am I trolling my userpage? I haven't even edited in over a month and a half. Besides, what can you block me for? For replying to you? V-Dash (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[47], [48], [49] HalfShadow (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior on your user talk page is tantamount (the same as) trolling, as is your behavior here, and making baseless accusations of stalking and sockpuppetry is a form of trolling and a blockable offense. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And you have just accused me of trolling you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can they both be blocked?Mantlefish (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Mantlefish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're baiting me to respond to you Jeske.V-Dash (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish is an SPA, and I am not baiting you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's ok for you to accuse others of being SPA, yet no one else can't?V-Dash (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish *is* an SPA; he's only edited here and on your talkpage. I have filed a checkuser request to see if this is another one of PolluxFrost/Dash Jr's socks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know he's not your account?V-Dash (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my contribs (the Kacheek emoticon in my sig is a direct link) and compare them with Mantlefish's. Note that they overlap. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish

Checkuser confirms that V-Dash is Mantlefish. Enough is enough. I am now asking for a ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeske, I, for one, would have no problem with you sacking this guy. It is now a clear cut case of sockpuppetry, not just a dispute involving you as before. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band)

I believe that User:Christopher R is attempting to remove what he claims to be libelous information. It is sourced, however. He has hit 3rr, as has another contributor who is reverting his removals, and been informed numerous times by way of his (Chris's) User talk that this is incorrect. I believe this to be CoI (see history). --Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up at WP:COI/N, please. This is the wrong place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here, since he has now issued a legal threat - [50]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I just blocked him until he retracts his legal threat. The article does seem to contain a lot of unsourced material; he's got a point, even if he's being a bully about it. I left him a note telling him to retract his threat, read our policy, and go to the talk page (I'll unblock him if he retracts his threat, and I encourage anyone else to do so if you see it happen before I do). Antandrus (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is http://menudo.biz really a reliable source? It appears to be a personal website. Should allegations of crime made by the complainant, but with no evidence of charges being laid or prosecutions obtained really be in an article? Particularly for living people, NPOV is more than just a recitation of sourced facts; it also entails a balanced article. Do minor drug seizures (with no evidence of subsequent legal action), particularly where one person was a minor, constitute an appropriately balanced addition? Where are the sources that support the last paragraph, which speaks of "numerous lawsuits"? Where are the sources supporting the claims against Edgardo Díaz? What sources support the claims of massive media coverage ("every major news cast") in the first paragraph? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just unblocked him; see the discussion on his talk page. The article does contain a lot of um, stuff, that really needs good sources if it is to stay. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While he was blocked, 69.157.5.186 continued the same edits. IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The section claims reports from Entertainment Tonight, CNN, etc. I cannot find any online corroboration for this. As such, I am removing it for now. A fan site isn't a reliable source and that is all there is for now. If new sourced can be found, it can be reinstated. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only source working is a 17-year old article from The New York Times, all others from menudo.biz... hardly reliable. That piece is also written like a tabbloid piece itself (my guess is by the webmaster or menudo.biz himself), trying very hard to include the phrase "gay sex scandal" as many times as possible. It should really be removed. I talked before looking. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Danger, danger, Will Robinson ... we've now got someone campaigning to restore this godawful paragraph about Menudo's alleged "gay sex and orgies". Blue5864, if "CNN broke the story" would you please provide a reliable source for that? I'm terribly sorry, but we have a WP:BLP policy which prohibits poorly-sourced material of this nature. And are you seriously going to call Jimbo for help getting it put back? Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be well-meaning, just a little misguided. I gave him a friendly notice regarding civility, as he has referred to the edits removing BLP violations as "vandalism". --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is not a single thing in the article that has a source. Is this normal for BLP? Bielle (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman and Ladies I can send you in a private email any document you want original judgments, news stories etc this is not fiction while Menudo has in the English market escaped the sex and drug scandal it is not so in latin america. The News Clips are fact not fiction. The menudo..biz site is owned by Mr. McGillis and more details on him and menudo can be found at www.mcgillismusic.com . There is so much more information all sourced in the mega scandal financial, gay sex (newsreports not me) and abuse of minors that is told in actual news reports. In fact if you go to youtube and type Menudo sex scandal you get Edgardo in his own words defending the international scandal. How can you get more souced than the Cover of the New York Daily News? Any document you want give me a email and its yours. HONESTLY did anyone read the letter signed by the menudo boys and there parents that was sent to the Justice Department and the Press release from the Justice Department. Both are in that one paragraph. Yes its a scandal and it was huge and its history that is sourced. Let that guy scream and holler all he wants because in any Court of the United States the defense to libel or slander is the truth. I did not write the articles the newspapers did. I did not write to the department of justice the children of Menudo and there parents signed that letter. C'mon do not let a bully push you around. This is America not Russia.--Blue5864 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

read this Menudo Parents write the department of justice regards gay sex and drugs read the letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue5864 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Such material fails WP:SOURCE and is not usable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons demands strict sourcing. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Than Mr. McGillis will sue for libel--Blue5864 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Constant reversions against the consensus here [51] [52] [53] [54] and legal threats (minor and blatant)... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've listed him on WP:AIAV. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And it's been removed, saying it should be discussed here. So, legal threats? ∞rr? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he was making legal threats here, just an explanation of what he believes will happen. I don't think Blue5864 is presenting himself as representing anyone involved in the legal case. But yes, action should definitely be taken on the nRR vios, and the fact that he removed part of this section. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Any blocks relating to users warring over Menudo should be made at the relevant thread, which is here. AIV isn't the only place administrators watch, and from my observations, they tend to pay more attention to this page. Spebi 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just filed it at AN3 here: WP:AN3#User:Blue5864 reported by User:Seicer (Result: ) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this can be retracted then. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I already removed this. Unless one here is an admin familiar with the dispute, please let me handle this. TIA. El_C 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I filed this independently after reviewing Recent Changes, and noted there was a case at ANI, which is on my watchlist. No one has to be involved to clearly see gross abuse of 3RR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not on AIV, that's for simple reports and this is complex. I blocked Blue, indefinitely, for legal threats. I also removed the entire Sex section and fully protected the page for 24 hours, just to be on the safe side (what's 24 hours, right?). I'll let an admin familiar with this dispute follow this up in case I don't get the chance to study this matter further. El_C 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to follow what it is that happening here, with this Blue5864‎ account? El_C 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It appears to be a role account, with Darrin McGillis at menudo.biz as at least one of the contributors (he claims it is used by his company -- see the "My company has maintained a Wiki account of Blue5864" line on his talk page). He persistently tries to re-insert a clearly libelous and poorly-sourced paragraph (sourced to tabloids, but actually just documents on his own personal website) into the article. I think he/they should stay blocked and we need to keep an eye on the article for attempts to bypass the block. Christopher R -- the user I originally blocked for legal threats -- I think was in the right here; he just wasn't going about it correctly at first. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it truly is a role account run by Darrin McGillis then it is a returning blocked user. See Mcgillismusic. IrishGuy ^talk 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be regarded as an unfounded personal attack? "Walrus just because you are supporter as stated on your site for gays". I have genuinely no idea what he could mean by that. I don't have a website, and if he's talking about my userpage, there's nothing of the sort on there. I've asked him for clarification. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering Blue5864's strong reaction when confronted about the reliability of the website above I would assume that he is actually the webmaster of this page, am I right? (if I am then this edit war appears to violate COI) regardless of that seeing that legal threats and a rather explosive edit war have resulted directly from this website's inclusion in the article the easiest way to avoid any more edit warring is to have the website blacklisted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He either is the webmaster, or, if we are to believe his claims, he is working on behalf of the webmaster. Regardless, he was blocked for legal threats, then unblocked when he retracted them, blocked again for more legal threats, then was probably on the way to being unblocked again when he claimed to have made no legal threats, or if he did, they have been retracted, and that he has "never had any intentions to file any legal action". And now, 50 minutes after that, he's clearly changed his mind. I can't see this guy getting unblocked now. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change

User:The Epopt blocked User:Duke o Puke due to his username. Duke is asking to be unblocked in order to change his name, but The Epopt seems to be away. Can someone review this? Please see Duke and The Epopt's talk pages for more details. Thanks Ripberger (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll look into it. The block log isn't saying usernameblock, however, though it appears User:The Epopt subsequently stated on the talk page that it was a block for that reason. Furthermore, the editor in question was never told why they were blocked in the first place - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That name is hardly warranting of a block, in my opinion. If you find something like that offensive, then the internet really isn't the place for you. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "away." User:Ripberger seems to be unaware of the posts I have left on Puke's talk page. I note that Puke had very little trouble creating a yet another account — User:Duck of Luke. ➥the Epopt (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Queen on that one. That is mild. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: This editor is not an admin, only voicing an opinion.)

Ah. Didn't know you weren't away, sorry. I just checked the datestamps on the talk page. If you like, I'll followup to my comment on their talk page and defer to you on this one - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I was aware of your (The Epopt) messages, but he needed to be unblocked to use the new username. Autoblocked, I guess. I just felt that you should have given him the option to change his name. Anyway, my apologies for any bad faith on my part. Thanks, Alison for looking into this. Ripberger (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know this is possibly controversial given the article they created, etc, etc. However as they've done nothing wrong, as the username is arguably offensive, and as the blocking admin appears to be away, I've reviewed this and agreed to unblock solely to allow them to file a request at WP:CHU and have their name changed to something else. This seems to be the most reasonable approach here - Alison ^❤ 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that user:The Epopt is continually referring to user:Duke of Puke simply as Puke in an attempt to create some sort of shock factor, trying to fool people into thinking that Puke is infact the entire username. Abuse of power at hand here. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to assume bad faith here. The block has been reviewed and hopefully the Duke will be editing with a new account in no time. I probably should have waited for The Epopt to respond before coming here, but here we are. I'll try to be more patient next time. Ripberger (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly suspicious that the block appeared to have been set with anti-account creation and the autoblocker on. Last I check soft blocks were used for username blocks. FunPika 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he's agreed to my suggestion on his talk page. To The Epopt, can we agree to unblock this guy now to address the problem? I'd rather not leave him blocked for any longer than needs be, but I did agree to defer to you, now that you're back here - Alison ^❤ 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not wheel-war over this; if you feel he should be unblocked, I won't object. I do suggest that User:For Queen and Country get his telepathy tuned up, as his intuition of my intentions is ... somewhat flawed. ➥the Epopt (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both points here. Unblocking, so. And yes, a little AGF required here from User:For Queen and Country regarding your intents :) Thanks for the followup - Alison ^❤ 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone try to clear this guy's autoblock? I've tried and can't lift it - Alison ^❤ 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be cleared now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped, and please consider what it makes your organization look like to have The Epopt representing it as an administrator. I would have been more than happy to have changed my name if asked, but he chose to summarily block me. Even now, all he says is that he will not "wheel war". Everything I've read about your username policy indicates that the way he handled this was completely wrong. He also voted to destroy an article that I created, while I was unable to speak for it because I was banned, because of him. If you're going to have written policies, might I humbly suggest that administrators as well as regular users should be forced to obey them? Duck of Luke (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Ripberger (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page

WTF? Eye of the Mind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just deleted the main page. [55] I've blocked the account indef until this gets figured out. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The oddest part is that the contributions show no evidence of going rogue. The admin was doing normal admin stuff minutes before deleting the main page. Maybe someone just used the admin's computer while the admin was away. 128.227.1.239 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 05:10, 8 December 2007 RyanGerbil10 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Main Page" ‎ (3,957 revisions restored: undo deleteion)
2. 05:08, 8 December 2007 Eye of the Mind (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Main Page" ‎ (Because I'm Evil) (Restore)

We need to get an emergency desysop right away. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[56] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoo Shanel moved quickly on that one! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "Because I'm Evil". Account compromised? No edits since October, then several today, including an indef-block[57]. Was the indef-block warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether indefinite (i.e. undefined length of time) or a few hours, blocking just means that the user needs to unblock himself first. El_C 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom meant the block that Eye of the Mind did just prior to deleting the main page, not the block of his account itself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Knowledge, I meant that Eye of Mind indef-blocked someone who was supposedly a sockpuppet today. Of course an indef block for Eye of Mind (at least for the moment) is appropriate, but was the action Eye of Mind took warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's remember to do this too next time it happens... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page itself is cascade protected by a number of other pages, fortunately, so that would not be a problem. Gracenotes^T § 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously The Random Editor (talk · contribs) (sysopping). Somehow, I doubt being evil was the most proximate cause of the deletion. :| Gracenotes^T § 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef block was justified - extreme and unusual circumstance. The block will no doubt be reviewed once we figure out what exactly happened. Manning (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, why doesn't the deletion show up here? (I'm not challenging whether it happened, as it's clear from Eye of the Mind's log; I'm just wondering if I'm somehow misusing Special:Log.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Silly me, didn't notice that "Page" was capitalized. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this admin account was created in Oct '07 so they're obviously a previous sysop who's returned and reclaimed their bit. But who, and why did they just do what they did??? - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, look up a bit to Gracenotes' comment. This is formerly User:The Random Editor. Metros (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just looked at their deleted userpage history and found them. Note that a sock 'outted' them a few days back - Alison ^❤ 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"No edits since October..." If that's true, then there's no way that the session would still be active in Mediawiki. Therefore, the second he logged back in, he could have been keylogged; so, a mere minutes later, the attacker would have received notification of the password, used it, and, well, the rest is history. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have a checkuser look at this, just to be sure. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

dmcdevit confirms the account was not compromised. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I checked first thing and no, it's not compromised - Alison ^❤ 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's just a way to enforce retirement from WP:( MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... Maser ^(Talk!) 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Although not entirely relevant to this thread, reading through here concerns me about the number of backdoor sysoppings that appear to be occurring. Whilst I completely agree that in some extraordinary circumstances it may be appropriate, and I don't know the events surrounding this particular one, the increased frequency that this is occurring is concerning, to me at least. Wherever possible, the community should be entitled to see the RfA of any admin and their edit history. To see a brand new account suddenly turn up with a sysop flag is far from ideal and should be avoided. Will (aka Wimt) 12:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to think, with no evidence to the contrary, that someone in Eye's house (perhaps a visitor) got their hands on the keys while it was left logged in. I guess we'll know within 24 hours what happened, there's no reason not to assume good faith in this case especially given the actions taken just minutes before consistent with a reliable sysop doing their job, but the indef-block until info is forthcoming and the emergency desysopping are indeed warranted to prevent any further disruption. Orderinchaos 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. TRE was a good editor. A good man. He retired about a week or so after gaining the admin bit. He created the new account a few days later. If it wasn't a friend being "funny" while TRE took a bathroom break or something, the forced retirement seems like a logical explanation. If it's the latter, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Lara_Love 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concurr. If a user makes a fresh start under a new username, then they should make it less obvious by not getting their sysop powers back right away, and instead act as a regular user for a while. This was an account that was sysopped too quickly. Oh, by the way, has anybody asked him why he did it? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I received an email from Eye of the Mind, with an explanation to what happened. I am assuming good faith, and unblocked the account. The main reason being that the account currently does not have admin privs, and any potential abuse would be minimal. [58] - [59] KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, the problem is resolved! Here's to AGF. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious (?) sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged

I could be wrong, but User:Obediun would seem to be a trivially obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked role account User:Obedium. Aside from the similarities in name, Obediun is editing the same article using the same approach as Obedium. In a way I admire the chutzpah of not even attempting to hide the sockpuppetry, but my understanding is that some admins disapprove of indef blocked users from editing as sockpuppets. Please act or not, as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The master account is User:Scibaby. New user Obediun is blocked and tagged. Please file sock cases at WP:SSP in the future, I patrol it daily. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases speaks

I am sorry my contributions have led to such a discussion here. Now that my block has expired, I'd like to say my piece.

I *still* feel that my block was unfounded. I believe that those who have blocked me, or have supported my block, cannot possibly be assuming good faith.

Just to make sure everything is clear, I'll post my "offending" text here in its entirety.

Starts now: You may be interested to know

I think Sarah is a lovely name, and you should be proud that you own it on Wikipedia. That said, I have dated four Sarah's. The first one broke up with me because she was a lesbian. The second one broke up with me to become a stripper. The third one broke up with me because, after a long night of drinking, I left the toilet seat up!! She kicked me out of her house and made me drive home drunk, for that! The fourth one, I don't honestly have anything bad to say about, but after one date she did decide she didn't want to see me any more.

I just felt compelled to tell you all that.

That is what I left for Sarah.

I have been accused of "sexual harassment". This disturbs me. Exactly what is considered "harassment"? Certainly, leaving numerous messages for someone could be construed as "harassment"...but I left exactly one. Certainly, messages including graphic or personal content could be...but mine contained no such thing. I have had an interesting history dating Sarah's, and I thought this user might be interested to hear about it. That's it. I would be very interested to hear how exactly my comment could be construed as "sexual harassment". My personal opinion is that the user who blocked me was way too eager to find a reason to do such a thing...and there are apparently numerous similar issues in his past. ANYWAY, the point is, I have never, nor will ever, have any desire nor intention to harass someone.

All that said, I truly have no desire to be blocked from Wikipedia. I find Wikipedia to be an invaluable resource, and an analysis of my edits will show I've never done anything to this encyclopedia that wasn't in good faith.

Despite the fact that there are many editors (who have contacted me privately, or have publically stated they enjoy what I do) who appreciate me...as I've said, I have no desire for another block. So, I'd just ask that you really try to Assume Good Faith...and if you can't, please let me know, hopefully we can work it out without any more drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter can be summed up fairly succinctly; your personal life has zero consideration regarding your editing the encyclopedia. Your real life interactions with people with the name Sarah is uninteresting in the context of contributing except that it provides an indication why you have directed your interest toward an editor who uses that name. It would be best if you don't (and hadn't) allowed your personal experiences dictate how you contribute. I strongly suggest that you put this incident behind you, not interact with editors based on similarity to people from your own life, and not seek to explain your actions in the context of your own experiences - It is not relevant . Please note that AGF works both ways, so please believe me when I say that it is your actions that were the problem and not the reaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I just hope nobody calls me a sexual harasser when I give out 8 of March carnations to female editors.... Zocky | picture popups 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block was only partially about Sarah. It was also about the unfunny comments you added to RfA which were sexually harrasing. While I would not have blocked you for the Sarah comments alone, coupled with those at RfA you were asking for trouble. Heed LessHeard vanU's comments seriously. - JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's comments explained nothing about "sexual harassment," and I find it difficult to believe that a single comment that some feel to be "uninteresting" or "irrelevant" is grounds for a block.

I'll acknowledge that a couple of my RfA comments have been viewed as inappropriate, and for that I have served my time. But the "sexual harassment" label is still extreme and undeserved. I assure you, if I wanted to harass people on Wikipedia, which I don't, I could certainly do it more effectively than asking a user named "Keith D" if he plans on editing Wikipedia in the nude. Keepscases (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will explain the sexual aspect of the situation - you noted that you had "dated" four females who had the name Sarah, two of whom you comment on in a manner indicative of a sexual identity. I have no desire to know what you mean by "dating" as far as romantic activity is concerned - and the recipient would also not know that either - but at least one individual is indicated as having been in a relationship with you. Therein is the sexual implication of your unsolicited post.

Unsolicited posts to anothers talkpage regarding the correspondees personal life is considered a poor idea, especially if there has no prior interaction between the parties. I think the only policy I can point toward is WP:NOT#... a social networking... site, which is more directed at consenting parties, but it is indicative of a general disapproval of excessive personal detail being used in communications. Is it harassment? Well, substitute Sarah with "Jew/Black/Bleeding Heart Liberal" and imagine the offense that may be felt by any editor who self identifies with the first two labels (obviously, the Bleeding Heart Liberal is bound to believe that you are perfectly within your rights to express yourself as you wish in whatever medium you choose - but then we are a bunch of pinko woosies...) if they were to receive an email regarding your past experiences of other members of that minority. Hmmm? I hope you can see that your approaches, no matter how innocent in intent, may be the cause of discomfort to another member of the community - and that is the bottom line.

I hope I have clarified my earlier comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And for $DEITY's sake, no more dating lesbians and leaving the toilet seat up. Dating Strippers is okay though! --WebHamster 14:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm all for the toaster idea. --WebHamster 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So am I allowed to respond to User:WebHamster with information about my personal life? I'm not being argumentative; this is a sincere question. I have a very hard time believing that personal information/thoughts on non-encyclopedia pages are grounds for blocking. Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keepscases: imagine how you would feel if someone left the paragraph that you wrote on Sarah's page, only with your real name instead of Sarah's. At the very least, I believe that you would have an odd impression of the writer, and you would wonder what the person's intentions were.

I looked at your comments on the RfAs, and I agree that they shouldn't have been made. There was another RfA in which you asked the candidate "if she found these men nice to look at". That question has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's suitability to be an admin. It's an inappropriate question, and could be considered sexual harassment. Even if you don't mean any harm, if other people are telling you that your behaviour is inappropriate, you should heed their words and stop. --Kyoko 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree regarding whether my question had anything to do with the user's suitability to be an admin. She declined to look at a non-Wikipedia website? I don't believe users unwilling to check outside sources should be made administrators. I will take more care in what I contribute in the future, but "sexual harassment" is really not a term that should be thrown around lightly. Keepscases (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How's "just plain creepy and wrong" sound? Because that's the first phrase that pops into my head when I read your comments - Alison ^❤ 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - your RFA questions are either inappropriate or just downright creepy as mentioned above. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have already promised to take more care with my contributions from now on. That is all I can do. I am truly sorry if my questions and comments were interpreted negatively by some, but I still maintain that I meant no harm, and that an indefinite block was undeserved. Keepscases (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI an "indefinite" block is entirely the appropriate response to problems regarding an editors behaviour - it can be lifted immediately the problem is resolved, be it minutes, days, months or never. It is not possible for a blocking admin to say that the behaviour in question will cease after 24 hours or 1 week and set a tariff accordingly. Blocks are preventative, and the indef block is often the best prevention possible because it relies on the blockee being the major part of the solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK six hours late

I've just finished the update so it's ready to go. Can someone post it please? Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been done now, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's due in an hour. Time keeps moving. Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sohailsyte and User:Sohailstyle

User:Sohailsyte (ends with "syte") has a short history of contributions. Much of his activity has consisted of leaving (and replacing) insulting and threatening messages to myself and one other user. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64].

In these messages, Sohailsyte "manually" signs them as "User:Sohailstyle" (ends with "style"). Hence the responses to Sohailsyte (yte) have gone to Sohailstyle (yle)'s talk page. I'm not sure if these two users are the same person, though it appears they are, and I have no idea what the point of this misdirection is.

One certain fact is that User:Sohailsyte's contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly of leaving threatening, insulting and entirely unprovoked messages on user's talk pages.

RedSpruce (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

lost password?ThuranX (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that User:Sohailsyte is a hoax, as evidenced by User:Sohailstyle's later question to Zora [65]. The threatening comments by the probable hoaxer seem quite out of character. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoax or not, this looks like a clear violation of WP:UN#Inappropriate_usernames as it is a Confusing username mak[ing] it unduly difficult to identify users by their username. The fact that the two userpages at Sohailsyte and Sohailstyle doesn't help either and may not be coincidence; I think syte is a straight copy of style. At the very least that list of "articles started" on syte is a complete hoax (unless Special:Contributions/Sohailsyte has gone haywire). In fact the edit history of Sohailsyte is interesting - they started with a copy of User:Sohailstyle's talkpage by mistake. Tonywalton ^Talk 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like clear impersonation. I've notified -syte of this thread, to allow them a chance to explain. —Random832 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Taric25

Taric25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in some content disputes, and not getting his way. As a result he filed the vexations and frivolous Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, which I deleted. He took it to deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.2FTTN. In this debate Eusebeus said: Endorse deletion I have posted a warning to the user's talk page over his adolescent use of a sockpuppet allegation when he didn't get his way in a content dispute. I also suggest that the user be issued a block as censure for this kind of behaviour. It is completely unacceptable. Needless to say, Taric25 immediately filed Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus.

How long do we put up with this querulousness? I believe Tarc25 needs to stop spitting in the soup as a matter of some urgency. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of like this seems to stem from your irregular and upsetting deletion of the sockpuppet page, which is being overturned at DRV. Taric25 might be being a pest with the Wikiquette alert (I was surprised that page even exists) but it's not as clear cut as Guy is painting it. The deletion of a report apparently made in good faith would irritate anyone. --W.marsh 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

That user is making a plea to lift the ban under which he is. I am not willing or able to mentor him, but I thought he might find someone willing to take him under his wing here. I am not making a judgment about how sincere his act of contrition might be, simply forwarding the request. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's had a ton of chances. We can give him one more chance, but if that fails, how many more are we willing to give? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WHy is it always 'Just one more' for some editors? let him find a new hobby. ThuranX (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his blocklog, the user should stay banned. If you unblock him, he'll just be a nuisance and go on the rampage again. Just keep him block. He never changed when he was unblocked before - I sincerely doubt he'll change now. Keep banned. Davnel03 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. He's been a long problem editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the BL, I see no reason why he'd be interested in being a model editor. Endorse ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kevin Murray

The other day, Kevin Murray made responded to a post, in what I consider a rude manner. The Wikiproject Poker had been debated some notability guidelines for poker players, and his response was, Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent WikiProject Overweight plumbers. I called him on this as uncivil behavior. To which he responded, "Lighten up... The plumber joke is an old standby .." To which I responded by stating, "I don't care if it is an old "standby" it is still rude." He then responded with, Go cry some where else. Immediately after making this exchange, Kevin Murray, took it upon himself to close the discussion. Now, the discussion might needed to have been closed---I won't argue that--- but I think his doing so immediately after our little exchange was tit-for-tat and immature. Would he have marked the discussion if I hadn't just called him on his incivility? All I wanted was an aplogy stating, "I didn't mean to be offensive." Instead, he got defensive and ruder and then acted in what I consider bad faith.Balloonman (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I have notified him on both his and my talk pages.Balloonman (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He made a joke about a policy which had consensus to reject, which you undid twice. You're pushing for something the community said no to, and having lost, you're NOW going after a 2 day old comment,which had a point, from a loud voice on the other side. Nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I undid it once, when it was closed shortly after it was opened. This page was started at 11:25 on December 6. United Statesian closed it at 18:10 baded upon a discussion going on here. The participants of the main page and part of the poker project were not even aware of the parrallel discussion until after our proposal closed. I reopened it because I didn't think it was appropriate for somebody to close it based on a discussion that occurred without those interested being notified. What I am going after is the comments Kevin made TODAY. I challenged him on his comment when he first made them---notice the time stamp and my response in on the notability page ---and he responded today. Rather than apologize, saying "I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a joke." He got ruder and acted in an inappropriate manner. I just noticed this little gem, BM, I find your balloon a bit inflated. I am not challenging that the discussion should be closed. It probably should be. But would HE have closed if I hadn't told him that his response was rude? Is telling somebody to go cry somewhere else appropriate? Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: While I am not contesting the closure, I do believe it was closed prematurely based upon the most recent discussion going on, others who opposed the initial proposal recognized a hole in BIO and we were trying to come up with a way to respond. I do not believe he would have closed it if it wasn't for our exchange.Balloonman (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Kevin Murray, rightly or wrongly, has chosen not to apologize, exactly what do you want to happen? Keepscases (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the same time that I added my plumber joke, I also made an offer to help the proponents find an alternate resolution (see [66]. I've been gone for two days and found BM's comments at my talk page. My first response was to explain my position (see [67], which solicited more rhetoric at my talk page. My next response was bitey and in retrospect I wish that I had been more compassionate. I apologize to BM and the community for my failure in etiquette. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• In all honesty, that is all I wanted---I did find your first response (starting with "lighten up") to be on the rude side. It doesn't matter if it is a joke or not, when somebody finds a comment to be rude, the appropriate response is to apologize--humor is a fine line. NOTE: While I can't necessarily argue against the closure of the discussion, I still believe you should have reclused yourself from doing so---especially so shortly after our encounter. (I told another admin in a similar situation the same thing and did so myself when I was personallu involved with a situation. As far as I am concerned, this is a dead issue.Balloonman (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case undiscussed unblocks

Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who has a highly negative history with myself, ^{[68] [69]} has unblocked two users whom I blocked yesterday for disruption, without attempting to first discuss matters with me beforehand. A brief account of the blocks is out lined at RFAR/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. As requested, I submit the block and unblock for review. El_C 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using the recently revealed "secret email list"? I have heard this is quite an effective and fast method to sort these type of differences out. Cheers, --Tom 18:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but no one reads anything there. El_C 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, if that was humour I'm afraid it was in rather poor taste. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is amazing how often the Durova incident is now being used to excuse any sort of misconduct, for example, calling a user a "liar and hatemonger," comparing me to Hitler, and so on. Forget that I was one her harshest critics, it just keeps getting invoked over and over again, by one of the blocked users, by Daniel Case, and soon by my own cat. El_C 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that unblock review for the first user was declined by another admin; I protected the page after the user compared myself to Hitler. The second user stated that he does not wish to file an unblock request; their page was protected following related insults. These are both 24-hour blocks/protections. What disturbs me is the negative history between myself and DC, as well any lack of prior communication. El_C 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably looking at the wrong user, but Sander doesn't appear to have been unblocked Addhoc (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I might have confused that, then. He writes "I would have lifted Sander's block yesterday but I didn't have the time" This is the user who compared me to Hitler and whose unblocked request was already declined by another admin. Somehow, in light of the negative history between Daniel Case, I suspect perhaps he is just trying to provoke me, in which case, mission accomplished. El_C 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alexia Death was already under editing restrictions due to the RfAr, and the block was explained in the appropriate location. Unblocking the account without chekcing there doesn't appear helpful. "BRD" does not apply to administrative actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I only unblocked Alexia Death, not Sander, as I told you, since that had already been reviewed and declined without a second unblock request (since Sander decided to quit the project, at least temporarily). Prior communication between admins is nice regarding an unblock; however in this case there was only an hour left on a 24-hour block and I felt the blocks themselves needed to be discussed here as Alexia was asking for an opportunity to do. I did not think I would get a reply in that time frame and secondly, I felt from what I could examine that the block had been given for insufficient reasons and with insufficient warning to an editor with only one block in her history, a block that had itself been overturned for insufficient evidence after a very short time.

I don't consider our history "highly negative", as what happened between us was months ago and we've both moved on. At least I have.

I didn't see a link to the ArbCom editing restrictions in the discussions on her user page. The unblock request was posted only after protection had been lifted (specifically to allow her to post an unblock request), after most of the block had run its course. If there were ArbCom issues here not visible to the "second set of eyes", someone more familiar with the case should have been ready to review the request first. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you were trying to provoke me, that you are holding a grudge. Why else would you legitimize my being compared to Hitler and so on? So you would have unblocked Sander Säde despite that, and Alexia for cheering him on. Well, I don't think that symbolic legitimacy from yourself amounts to very much, but those two users are likely to argue it means the world. El_C 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I see you (sort of) disagreed with the block, though you mostly seem to be only arguing that you didn't see a good reason provided for the block, and you wanted it discussed on ANI. That's fantastic, except that your choice to simply unblock the account without any such discussion, or asking the blocking admin for more information, flies in the face of your own reasoning. As Will said above, it would have been far better to have simply gone to the admin, or here if necessary, and laid out your reasons for wanting the unblock. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I was unaware of the editing restrictions. As I have said below, had I been aware of them (i.e., had the discussion leading up to the block included some mention of, or link to, those restrictions, I might have left it alone. In fact I probably would have.

Still, though, I would have been hesitant to discuss it with El C because it looked like he was a little too personally involved. He understandably was upset about the Hitler comment; he should have asked another, uninvolved admin to review the situation for him. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still blinking at Daniel's argument "Prior communication between admins is nice regarding an unblock; however in this case there was only an hour left on a 24-hour block and I felt the blocks themselves needed to be discussed here as Alexia was asking for an opportunity to do." Surely you don't mean to say "I had to unblock without consultation with the original blocker or I might have missed my chance to undo his action without consulting him, since the block was so short...?"Prior communication" before undoing another's admin action is much more than "nice" (I mean, good heavens, nice?), it's required. See WP:BLOCK. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

It says "should not". That means strongly suggested, not required. Alexia had posted her request with only three hours left on her block. S/he had asked for it with the specific intent of opening up a discussion on AN/I, which I felt we needed to have and s/he needed to be part of. I expected s/he would start such a discussion right away. Someone else started it first ... one which used my name, implied I was the one who might have been out of line, and about which I was not notified. I did feel it necessary to at least notify El C of the unblock after the fact. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course, it's a mere suggestion, I do stand corrected. "Administrators should not unblock... without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator. ... it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. Not required at all, merely courtesy and common sense, what was I thinking. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

Like you felt it necessary to lift a block an hour before it expired. Right. El_C 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, one of the blocked users, Alexia Death (talk · contribs) writes, and even frames the following: Why I wont file for an unblock if I find this so unfair? Because a good editor Sander Säde (talk · contribs) is blocked because of me. And why is he blocked? Because the blocking admin went and harassed him until he stepped over the line and said something rather rude. I respond with: For my part, I rather doubt you would get such a request granted, but that is patently false, I did not harass anyone. I said: "Stop trying to demoralize an inactive user (who is your content opponent) when others are attempting to the opposite, both of you." He responded with: "Content opponent? No, see this. Just a liar and hate-monger." Then I issued a 24-hr block, which an unblock-review later concurred with. But I'm evidently outliving my usefulness here. El_C 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Then, he nonetheless goes on to file an unblock request. As for Alexia Death;'s block, I politely asked and then warned him/her to argue without inneundo, but he felt compelled to continue with an inflammatory approach: telling Bishonen she needs chocolate or a wikibreak, telling myself I lack sunshine or whatever. I still insist on having matter-of-fact, innuendo-free discourse. El_C 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, protection came long after this user made it clear they do not wish to file an unblock request (of course, then today, they did). I only protected the page after when I mentioned Sander Säde (whom Daniel Case would have unblocked, lest we forget) comparing me to "Hitler on adrenaline," Alexia responded with a sort of 'well, if the shoe fits.' These are the users whom Daniel Case is favoring. In the past, I had heavily criticized Daniel Case for highly inflammatory conduct. He certainly did not appear to forget, as he clearly notes on my talk page. El_C 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was acknowledging that past only because it's better that I disclose it than not, in which case someone else would have brought it up and accused me (jutifiably) of trying to be deceptive about possibly having an axe to grind. If I truly held that against you, I would have done something like this a long time ago.

As for Sander: Your stated justification for the block was "edit warring". One restoration of an ill-advised comment does not, IMO, constitute an edit war. Block for incivility if you wish (and if you felt insulted, as I don't dispute you had every right to, you should have asked someone else to make the block just to avoid the appearance of conflict), but block for valid reasons.

And just because someone says they won't request an unblock does not mean they will continue to feel the same way. I wasn't the one who unprotected the page, after all. You could have played a more active part in later discussions. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the timing between Coren's unprotection (first, telling me after) with one hour left in the block/protection(!), then Alexia sudden urge to forgo the solidarity with his compatriot and file an unblock request, and then Daniel Case appearing on the scene to grant it — well, that is some symbolic wonderness of would-be legitimacy and coincidences. Seemingly amazing maneuvering. El_C 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point, of complaining at ANI, over an unblock an hour early. I could see it, if it was 12+ hours early, and there wasn't concern over the reason for the block originally. It was granted one hour early, with the express purpose of allowing the block / protection to be reviewed. What net benefit to the project would one more hour blocked accomplish? Oh, and, as far as the timing, s/he had been asking for people to unprotect / unblock, at least 15 hours prior, and, when I came across them, they were upset and confused, and had no idea what to do, to request review, since their talkpage was protected. I directed them to unblock-en-l. SQL^{Query me!} 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now this I resent. I was approached by an editor that was unable to post an {{unblock}} on their page because it was protected, but that wanted to do so. This is an eminently reasonable request (especially since there was barely more than an hour left), and one which I granted immediately under the provisio that the editor would only post that request, which they have. Your innuendo that there was some sort of collusion to undermine you is complete fantasy, and I would appreciate your striking this remark posthaste. — Coren ^(talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm amused more than resentful. I doubt I communicate much with Coren; to assume there is some conspiracy between all of us would easily be dispelled by reading our edit histories. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an amazing coincidence, then. One that helps you provoke me. El_C 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do you see the point of unblocking an hour early, then? It's the provocation that's the point. On a related topic: a longer block for generally making the atmosphere of the site toxic would be appropriate for Sander Säde and Alexia, IMO. As far as I remember, I wasn't involved in the Digwuren RFAR, except for giving evidence on a specific minor issue involving Digwuren only.[70] But I read the input of these two on the workshop, and saw their unrelenting assumption of bad faith--atrocious faith. So it was with misgivings I appealed to Sander to not restore Alexia's comment, again, on Ghirla's page.[71] And sure enough, he answered with his characterestic grab at the opportunity to insult and to wikilawyer; telling me I had violated rules (always with the rules) in removing incivil comments from Ghirla's page--did I think I was "psychic", to know what Ghirla wanted removed? Or did I imagine I was an "almighty Wikipedia god"[72], as admins here generally do? I could have written it myself, having followed his typical comments on RFAR Digwuren. Alexia was a bit more rude on the same subject, and creepily personal about my likely psychological problems. Apparently these include, but are not limited to, a secret passion for Ghirlandajo. ("Even a wish for a happy life seems to upset you these days... I wonder why... Missing him that much?"[73]) (edit summary: "More wellwishes".) Why, seriously, does Wikipedia put up with users who puff poison smoke over any and all attempts at communication? Please read the entire conversations and then tell me if you think 24 hours each was a long block for the behavior shown, including calling El C "Hitler with adrenaline overdose", and making both El C and me--of all people--responsible for the Durova scandal--which, as it happened, we were pretty instrumental in showing up--but who cares, it happened on Wikipedia and we both edit Wikipedia... so why not insist it was all the fault of El C's cat? Bishonen | talk 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Basically:

• Alexia posted message saying that she is not exactly waiting Ghirlandajo back, but wishes him well in real life.
• Irpen reverts him.
• Sander Säde restores the version.
• All well known names, Bishonen, Jehochman, El C come up somewhere.
• Something happens which I don't really understand.
• Biggest contributor to estonian related topics with no blocks in his history gets blocked and his user page protected.
• Some unrelated administrators decides to provide unblock ONE HOUR EARLYER. And gang jumps to his neck aswell.

I know you enjoy your little powergames, and cabals or circles of trust or animal-picture-exchanges or secret mailinglists or whatever you wish to call them. But that is stupid. This is not a god damn World of Warcraft. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

Instead of reverting, Irpen could have politely asked Alexia to tone down or remove the comment. Or was the comment incorrect at first place? I am not exactly waiting Ghirlandajo back either. I didn't like how he handled conflicts. But at the same time he was a good contributor, so I do think wikipedia misses some when losing him.

But either way, those "friendship-groups" you are holding here damage wikipedia MUCH MUCH MUCH more than Alexias comment. Every day many good contributors are leaving the project because they accidentally stepped on someones toes and group of cabalists gangs up on them. It's on the news of EVERY country! Wikipedia is losing credibility every day because of this. In next few years, it has nothing left. And the wikipedia haters cheer as their predictions that wikipedia eats itself with the present oligarchy have come true. Suva Чего? 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for calling Ghirlandajo a "liar and a hate monger" (the reason for the block) after being mildly warned not to place negative things on opponents' talk pages. Yes, I caught this on Bishonen's talk page, so what? That this user compared me to Hitler afterwards, and you, Suva, defend him speaks volumes about you. I'm not sure what is the underlying motive behind your diatribe, nor will I speculate. El_C 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand the underlying reason, Suva; a five-second glance at your contribs reveals you are part of that ethno-national dispute. El_C 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not protecting anyone. I only thought it was not necessary nor good idea to protect Ghirlas talk page. And I specially think that the blocks were unnecessary. And I specially-specially think that assuming bad faith towards the unblocking administrator who wasn't aware of the arbcase is unnecessary. Sander and Alexia are just people who I know. But at the same time this is not isolated case I disagree on. Suva Чего? 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Suva. I was very disappointed to see you falling in with Sander's and Alexia's chorus on Sander's page,[74] as well as joining the battleground here on ANI. I thought you held yourself above that stuff (shrug). Secondly, aren't you forgetting something in your nice friendly summary of Alexia's original message? Her edit summary.[75] Perhaps you didn't notice it, or didn't relate it to what Irpen had just been saying. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

I had three connections with the case. A) I find that everyone has right to leave other users messages, and users have right to discard messages from their own talk page. I felt it was bad taste to remove someones comments from someone elses talk page although it was not actual vandalism. B) I don't like active contributors being thrown away from the project. C) I don't like people assuming bad faith everywhere while when I would do it I would get blocked instantly.

Other than that, I find this whole matter pointless and childish, from both... erm... From every side that is now involved. Suva Чего? 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, there seems to have been a defect in enforcement as the Arbitration case specifies that editors must be placed on notice before they can be blocked. I have created a log for warnings at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction and given Alexia Death and Sander Sade proper notice. Second, the idea that, absent this technical quibble, one admin would reverse another admin's block of a legitimate Arbitration action without discussion or consultation either on this noticeboard or with the blocking admin is rude at best. Would Daniel Case care to explain how Alexia and Sander's edits do not fall under the editing restriction applied in this case? . The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. This is not some random disputable civility block. These are editors who have demonstrated such bad behavior across such a broad range of articles that Arbcom has placed them under a very broad restriction. Was Daniel Case perhaps not familiar with this Arbitration? Really, the fact that only an hour is left is an argument for not unblocking early; unblocking with only an hour left gives every impression of being done specifically to get a dig in at the blocking admin. Thatcher131 22:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the editing restrictions. Had I been, I would have let the block stand.

There was no provocation intended, really. It would have meant a world of difference had the talk page discussions regarding the block(s) referred to the case (i.e., in the form of the warning you mentioned), particularly since it was not filed under either user's name. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks as if you did this, an hour before the block expired, to legitimize the attacks against me. El_C 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt Alexia should have been allowed to initiate a discussion over here. That's all. I have zero interest in your recent editing history or anything else you do outside of this block. We already have enough users prone to conspiracy theories to explain everything; we don't need administrators who are.

Take some time away from the box and cool off for a while. I did. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the discussion I felt we needed to have has started below, and since I don't consider myself an involved party in those issues I will just go back to editing, to, you know, creating and improving content, as we are all supposed to do. I will in the future strive in complicated situations to see if there's some ArbCom strictures, and of course contact the blocking admin. But otherwise, cheerio. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems wise. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Daniel Case, that is not credible. El_C 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Even I was not aware you had logged it as enforcement block. How was he supposed to know?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C has acted in a manner unbecoming of an admin

I meant to file something here immediately but as always, real life interfered.

A) I was told I was blocked for revertwaring. The reverwar is this[76] dif only. One revert is not a revertwar. The editing restriction does not come into play here. Its not a content dispute nor was I blocked for any incivility. I also haven't edited anything Eastern Europe related in months.

B) Reverting other peoples comments on other persons talk page cannot be right. I always respect page owners wishes in regard of my messages, so even if I was out of line, its was not El_C-s place to make that decision.

C) When El_C posted this [77] on my talk page I was already past the minor incident and peacefully reading a book. IMHO the whole message is written in very hostile tone and with intent to escalate the situation. Any attempts to explain or defuse the situation were countered with immeasurable hostility[78].

D) I changed my decision about filing an unblock request because El_C Reverted my personal opinion about his actions and then protected my user page effectively using his admin rights to gag me[79]. His actions are not actions of a respect worthy admin.

E) The block explanation at the ArbCom page was added retroactively almost two hours later[80][81] and with rather different reasoning than the block itself. That to me looks like an attempt to legitimize impulsive block decision. This is also apparent in the fact that neither on my talk page nor in the block info arbcom is mentioned at all as factors twoards the block.

F) El_C has exhibited clear personal dislike for me and Sander, persistently failing to assume good faith, and thus is not sufficiently uninvolved editor to make block decisions.

As an amusing side note, it took a day on unblock IRC channel until one admin dared to remove the restriction from my user page so I could actually file the unblock request. I got told pretty directly by an admin that he do not wish to get involved in fear of prosecution along the lines of the thread above. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A. You were blocked for reverting insults back in (the lacking sunshine bit), after being warned to go do something else, or at least cut down on the innuendo. B. You, or your content allies, do not get to demoralize inactive users who are your content opponents, with negative comments when others are placing friendly greetings for them to return. That is highly disruptive and combative. C. The protection was preventing people from adding further positive comments to this user's talk page, because you and your allies were revert warring over having your demoralizing negative comments in. That's what you were warned about, upon me lifting the protection. So that's you would not revert again. Undoubtedly, you were satisfied in having the page protected. D. We were having a discussion after this at the time and you made no indication that you changed your mind about your "solidarity" vigil. E. We can start a new arbitration case, if you and Daniel Case and everyone else would like and if the Committee wishes to accept it. That would be my preferred course. F. Among the various insults was comparing me to Hitler, while I insulted neither of you. G. Wikipedia is not a battleground. So stop using underhanded, demoralizing tactics against your content opponents. El_C 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do hope You don't take the indents i added to your comment as an ofense.

A: AGF? Or is Assuming worst and gagin now the policy?

B: Demoralize? You are taking this way too personally you know. I was trying to cheer the person and make it clear that I hold no grudges.

C: Im sorry but the reply does not make sense... A lot of Assuming Bad Faith... I had just said good night, making it clear im going to retire.

D: We could start another Arbitration, true, but it would be wasted. I'm no longer an active editor as is and my experience with arbcom kind of took away the illusion that it can actually solve anything. However you are free to do just that.

F: I Have not used the H word to you or anybody. I expressed my opinion that you are a lousy admin and thats what Im doing here now.

G: If it is not a battleground why do you keep attacking me? I cant stop something I have NEVER done.

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to these provocations. El_C 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You both need to calm down. Alexia, when you are told to stop doing something by an administrator, chances are he is not trying to get you, but rather trying to stop disruption to Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding why he is telling you to stop, politely ask him on his talk page, and try to avoid using derogatory terms toward him or her. Also, when you lose your cool, it's best to back away from the Wiki for a while - I see you have tried this, however another thing you should do is try to do other things and avoid interaction with the editor and/or administrator in question, unless you have no choice but to do so, and if you must, use polite terms - for example, don't compare them to Hitler. Disputes over civility will not improve anything.

EL_C, I applaud many things you do as an administrator, however you should really try to avoid protecting the talk page of a user you are in a dispute with in favor of trying to find common ground with him/her. Also, when you feel you have been attacked, address it politely on the user's talk page, instead of immediately threatening to block the user. As an administrator, you should try to prevent disputes as much as possible, and when you are in one, it is best that you try to provide reasoning as to why the editor you are disputing with has violated policy, so that the editor knows what to avoid for next time. Maser ^(Talk!) 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't in a dispute with any of these users. This was the first time I ever interacted with them. El_C 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El_C, How come I remember having some contact with you before? Are you not friendly with Ghrila and im not sure but did you not support his "anti-fashist" editors campaign?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "friendly with Ghrila" since I don't recall interacting with him and am unaware of what you may or may not be remembering. El_C 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Im calm as ice. And as I said, I have not compared anybody to Hitler, I resent the persistent accusations of having done so. You can also see that for me the trigger issue was over by 3 in the afternoon. Then queue El_C with block threahs and theres no way to explain anything.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El C, I am not familiar with this particular discussion, but you do some things that are not appropriate, polite or correct. You edit war, accuse users of things that haven't done (like earlier with me) and have some problems with incivility. These are things that would get everyday editors warned and blocked. You are a good admin but you need to relax and chill. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, piling on is not to your credit. If you think I have issues with civility, which I have never been seriously accuse of, feel free to submit these. I told you that adding the resolve tag to the Calton thread a few months ago was what I was referring to. As far as I know, you have issues with civility and edit warring, which is why I asked you to avoid Calton, and I realize that you have been angry at me ever since, but I still think it was for the best. It was getting too much. El_C 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I got blocked for saying people needed a bit of sunshine in their lives... Whats going to happen to you?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to cut down on the innuendo. But you kept it up up to telling me that I "lack sunshine in my life." It appears you fail to realize when your innuendo is negative, so it's best to avoid innuendo, in general, except with those whom you are very friendly with. At the event, you should not have restored that innuendo once I removed it, having already been warned twice. El_C 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

May it be also noted that this is not civility dispute. I claim that El_C has a acted impulsively and with bias, escalated the situation instead of trying or even allowing it to diffuse, failed grossly to assume good faith, abused his admin rights to block and gag a person by page protection and then trying to pass that wrongful block as ArbCom enforcement.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith yourself, Alexia. There are several things you have said that can be interpreted as incivility. No it is not a civility dispute, but it appears to be a dispute rooted in uncivil statements. Maser ^(Talk!) 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to assume it all along. It is apparent from all my conversations with El_C from last night. But when all you attempts of diffusing and dismissing the issue are countered with more accusations, I admit I may have lost my cool slightly. But that was last night. I Have brought this issue here here because I hope for unbiased input from other people and hoping ultimately that this critique helps El_C to become a BETTER admin.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Could you please state your opinion in the matter of logging the block to arbcom page two hours later and with out a beep about it either in block message nor on my talk page.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, and simply see that you are arguing over a block issued. I would also like to add that I am not an administrator. Allow me to give an example of an edit that could be viewed as uncivil:

Edits like these can be viewed as uncivil because you intensify them with capitalized letters and it shows a lack of AGF in the sense that you misunderstand the reason for the block and assume he blocked you for giving people nice messages, which you believe he saw as trolling. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Good to know. Showing emotion=Bad. And no, its not the block. 24 hours is negligible length and I would not make a beep if it was given by a properly neutral and well meaning admin. I am here to discuss El_C-s behavior.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

An emoticon is not an amnesty to misconduct. I doubt you would have accepted a 24 block hours from anyone. El_C 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm used to dealing with disruptive users. This isn't new for me, and my record is rather exemplary when it comes to the ehtno-national disputes & related spillovers. As I'm quite active, I attract some questionable attention, but it's to be expected. El_C 01:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I resent your insinuation that I am a disruptive user just as much as you resented the comparison to the terror of 20th century. And this is not one of those ethnic disputes.It started with some well wishes for Christs sake... --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. As if being disruptive on Wikipedia is even close to being compared to Hitler, but you resent it "just as much," thereby defeating your own point. Once again, going to an inactive content opponent's talk page to tell him that you are not looking forward to him coming back after someone else wishes his return, is hardy well wishing, even if you add an emoticon & say, 'oh, but all the best in real life.' It works to create a toxic atmosphere for naught. El_C 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to create a toxic atmosphere. My intent was opposite actually. In my mind the statement looked along the lines Ive liked the quiet and i cant say that I miss you, but know that I do not hold a grudge. The toxins came from people like assuming I was sneering etc. and refusing to give up the accusation long after it should have been forgotten.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you. The problem is how that comment comes across (flippant, demoralizing), not your intent. El_C 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes across like that to someone expecting the worst. However this topic just like that block are really not about that comment. It is about your actions. Pretty please try to explain yourself without a torrent of accusations? --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You resent being called disruptive "just as much" as I resent being compared to Hitler? "Just as much"? How do you think that comes across? El_C 03:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother answering that. I am done speaking to you. El_C 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely if the comment was not an outright, vulgar personal attack then it is upto the person whose talkpage Alexia posted on to take action, if he even felt it necessary. We are not Team America: World Police. --For Queen and Country (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If the comment is negative and undermines positive interaction (urging the inactive user to return), then, no it is not helping the project. El_C 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a was an attempt at being nice and burying the hachet. Really... I will say this again: The way some people read into it is outright silly.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Few people seem to have thought so, hence the edit war. Even Sander Säde‎, who, having revealed that he feels the user in question is just "a liar and a hate monger" (I don't think he believed your comment was... uplifting to Ghirla) admitted he thought it was flippant. El_C 03:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. El_C is one of the most fair admins I know. He deals with difficult and controversial subjects and users all the time. He has great intuition and is very considerate with editors when the situation get's hot. He knows when to "hold them and when to fold them". I trust him with the tools 100 times over many other admins. I have an extensive block log, and there are 2 admins that I have experienced on that log that could use some of the positive traits and knowledge as El_C, and be here instead labled as "unbecoming of an admin". So if I were ever blocked by El_C, I would know I was way out of line, and would accept it as a just block.(and I would not use expletives, either. :p). - Jeeny ^(talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fasttrack to ArbCom

This needs to be resolved decisively. I am no fan of "civility blocks" per se. They tend to aggravate the situation rather than alleviate anything but exceptional attacks deserve an immediate action. Hate speech should be dealt with on the spot. Calling someone a "Hate-monger" or "Hitler with adrenaline overdose" deserve a crackdown even if "liar" can be overlooked.

Harassing the distressed user with "I don't want you back and we enjoy you gone" is totally disgusting even if "sweetened" by emoticons and best real life wishes. Add to this a revert war to keep this baiting from being removed by editors who try to convince the jewel to get back to the crown. Remember, we are talking about the user whose contributions to this project may exceed the entire archives of this Wikilawyering board and many FA's under the belt.

And now, this is turned against an admin who tried patiently to convince those fellows to stop before blocking. Seems like nothing is learned.

ArbCom material. --Irpen 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, ArbCom is usually a last resort. Is it necessary at this point? Maser ^(Talk!) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Have the remedies from the previous decision been exhausted? They do apply here, don't they? Jd2718 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All I was trying to do was to keep hostile ethno-national content disputing parties away from each other. I did not expect Daniel Case and Coren to undermine my efforts. El_C 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eeh! None of this would have happened without your unnecessary threats and blocks and especially protections.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When I warn a user not to restore negative comments on his content opponent's talk page and his response is that said user is not his content opponent, "just a liar and hate-monger," then we have a problem. If that user then compares me to Hitler, it compounds it. El_C 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El C....check your talk page. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the title of this section. Fasttrack to arbcom should not be under discussion for something as simple as a civility block. Durova^Charge! 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova, it's best to familiarize yourself with the matter before making suggestions. Judging from what you wrote , you did not familiarize yourself with the subject on which you opine. First step is to read the thread and the second step is to check the diffs and contributions.

This is not about "civility block". This is two users triumphantly harassing their content opponent, Ghirlandajo, who left Wikipedia distressed by them and their likes. When told to stop, their turned into harassing the admin, and then another admin who've got old issues with the original admin unblocks and encourages such activity. The problem is not a "simple civility block". Never was. --Irpen 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Read it from the top, Durova, from the top. El_C 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to restate my view more clearly. I dislike this recent trend toward fast tracking administrators into arbcom at the expense of normal dispute resolution. Traditionally that's been done for wheel wars and not a lot else. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the arbitration remedies have been exhausted. These editors have a broad civility restriction in place which may be enforced by any uninvolved admin by blocks of up to one week in duration. Unfortunately I am going to be out of town for a couple days so I can't mop this mess myself. Thatcher131 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Coren and Daniel Case unprotecting and unblocking, respectively, in way which, to quote yourself: "gives every impression of being done specifically to get a dig in at the blocking admin" (moi). El_C 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren is a new sysop. He may not be aware that a blocked user sees a screen that contains the email address of the unblock mailing list. Protecting a user talk page does not prevent them from requesting an unblock. I agree that Daniel Case should have consulted El C before reversing the block. Daniel seems to admit that above,[82] so that issue is no longer in dispute. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That, actually, is entirely besides the point. An editor has come on #wikipedia-en-unblock (one of the suggested recourses). At their request, I have unprotected the page to allow the placement of an {{unblock}} template, after making sure that abuse of that template was not the reason it was protected in the first place (it wasn't). The request was reasonable (especially since there was only an hour's worth of protection left or so), and given that the only valid reasons to fully protect a user talk page is to stop abuse of {{unblock}} templates (which wasn't taking place) or other disruptions (which placing an {{unblock}} template most assuredly isn't), unprotecting the page was the only reasonable thing to do.

As for the wild accusation of "collusion" with David to somehow "undermine" the blocking admin... The sum total of our interactions (on- or off-wiki) is two comments of mine on his talk page months ago, regarding the DRV of an article he closed. — Coren ^(talk) 08:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no apparent need for additional sysop actions in this case. ANI is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Therefore, this conversation should end now, or move elsewhere. If anyone would like to continue the discussion, my talk page is available. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There seems to be confusion over exactly what is being discussed here. I thought I was replying to Irpen who argues in this sub-thread that ArbCom is needed to resolve the fact that two disruptive editors were hounding a third editor and now are hounding two admins. For the record, El_C was within his discretion to make an enforcement block; the unprotection is a trivial matter because it is only meant to stop the editor from abusing the unblock request and stopping blocked editors from communicating altogether should be rare; and the unblock without discussion was rude and uncalled for. I don't believe Arbcom would accept a case against Daniel Case unless he was deeply intransigent and had done this before, and I don't believe a case against Sander and Alexia is needed because they can be blocked by any uninvolved admin on their civility parole. Hope this covers all the bases. Thatcher131 03:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats the crux of the issue. El_C did not make an ArbCom enforcement block. He blocked me seemingly impulsively and then two hours later framed it as a an enforcement block with totally different explanation than on my user page or block log.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

El C seems to believe there is a history to Daniel Case's action; that past negative interaction influenced the unblock. However this does not seem at all obvious. Unless there is much more to this history, it would be best to assume a simple error and move on. Jd2718 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion....since it seems that everyone is forgetting what this whole thing was all about, I think all involved (which if you keeping score, appears to be El_C, Alexia Death, Daniel Case, and Coren....I think) should just call it a night and just let it go.

Since this discussion has been going on for, what looks like 24 hours, I think all involved need to just take a break. Nothing is worth getting this upset about. Just let it go guys.

I would also suggest that Alexia Death apologize to El_C for the "Hitler" reference, that was really uncalled for. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: The above editor is not an admin, but an editor voicing an opinion.)

How many people do I need to point it out? I did not say or even hint anything about Hitler, or liars or hate-mongers. Sander did. You can check from my user page. Please get your facts straight before suggesting an apology. Really.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Re: Neutralhomer. The Hitler thing may bounce off. Experienced admins are supposed to have thick skin. This is not the main matter.

The main matter is as follows. As a result of the atrocious climate due to the conduct of some users exemplified well in this incident, followed by the ArbCom's sloppiness, a star user, an author of more FA's and GA's than all of the WP:ANI "contributors" combined was forced to abandon Wikipedia and stopped responding to inquiries. My attempt to cheer him up (not even sure when he would get it) and encourage his return, provoked another series of trolling. The triumphant nonsense of joy over the success in hounding off the opponent who produced more golden content here than those fellows and their friends ever will was nothing but harassment. Any admin who cares about Wikipedia's is bound to protect its best contributors. I would even put it stronger. Creating and maintaining comfortable conditions for the content writers should be the first and foremost duty of the admincorps.

When El_C was doing just that, he faced becoming a target himself. I think he can handle it. But that other admins for whatever reasons chose to encourage disruptions to settle their scores with El_C is alarming. El_C can and should handle being called names. But if he cares about the project, and he does, he should take an action when he sees such disruption and harassment of its best editors. --Irpen 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear and agree with everything you just said. I just figured that after some 24 hours and people getting confused maybe it was time to walk away for a couple. I do hope, though, that the editor who "forced to abandon Wikipedia" does come back. We have lost ALOT of very good editors and writers here on Wikipedia and it makes me sad when another one goes. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered term limits for admins? I am NOT pointing to anyone above, but it seems like many admins just get worse and worse as time goes on, and the concerns of the minority group who opposed their arbcom candidacy come true.
On a related note, will Jim Wales ever retire? T (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doublechecking

I just became an administrator and blocked an editor for the first time. I blocked User:DozClayStaues indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I just wanted some confirmation that I did it correctly. Thanks for any feedback. Useight (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but don't forget to sign your name when leaving "You're Blocked!" messages. Sean William @ 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks OK. Can't see any major problems, apart from the comment above. Davnel03 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my sig. Useight (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Well done! Just on the sig thing; with certain block templates, such as that one, you can simply add a ''|sig=~~~~'' into the template and it will appear nicely within the frame :) - Alison ^❤ 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it does look better that way. Useight (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to activate the auto-signing feature in any of the {{uw-block}} series, the parser is looking for "|sig=<any text>" at the end of the template. I suspect that most admins use "|sig=y" or something similar. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are dummy pages and users for you to practise on if you like at Wikipedia:New admin school. Splash - tk 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangina2

The user Orangina2 has disrupted the Wikipedia football project over a long period of time. The very minor nature of his edits (he generally only edits infoboxes) is probably the only reason he hasn't been blocked already. The Wikipedia Football Project Player Manual of Style is the agreed Wikiproject Football standard for football player infoboxes, yet this user continues to actively apply his own style (here for example), despite numerous warnings on his talk page, most of which he has failed to respond to. If the user disagrees with the standard, that is fine, he is welcome to discuss it, but he has failed to do so. However given the user's disruptive edits and his lack of response, I don't know what other choice I have other than to request a block. He doesn't seem to be a vandal as such, just someone who wants to "do his own thing" and not communicate, collaborate or adhere to any kind of consensus. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(1 edit conflict) He should be blocked indefinitely. Despite the amount of warnings on his talkpage (probably over 50), he seems to not be corresponding with any of WP:FOOTBALL's policy's. In my view he should be blocked indefinitely as he seems to be doing what he wants with the templates, when he wants. Davnel03 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He now seems to be communicating on his talk page, but I'm not sure if this is because he fears a block? Not sure whether he should be given a further grace period. --Jameboy (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RaulTheFool -- Personal attack and general trolling

User:RaulTheFool (contributions) is an account with only 3 contributions to date, all comments at Talk:Ann Coulter and all made in the past couple days. The problems of with those posts, of general trollery and of personal attack, are self-evident from them; "RaulTheFool" seems to be a trolling-only account (perhaps another round from "Big Daddy"). Besides fitting action against the account, I suggest the deletion of the talk-page section, whereas it holds much flame-bait but nothing useful toward the editing of the article.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please act soon on that section-deletion; incivility carries on, on both sides. I'm tempted to do it myself, but I think it had better be done by an admin, else it will only feed the flames. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't play his game. The best way to get people to stop trolling and act civil is to simply ask them to suggest a new version of the content they object to. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't feed. The contrib's to this point do not rise to the level of block; it's someone on a soapbox, but there is no clear disruption. I wouldn't even ask for a suggested version. Ignore it and let the thread die. If the editor moves to article space disruptively, post here again or contact an admin directly. Marskell (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the user, and agree not blockable yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week by other admin

Can an admin block this indefinitely as a sockpuppet of either:

• Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or;
• Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's evident that this user is a sock of someone, given the user's relative expertise. It's either Mike, who he seems to be defending, or Encyclopedist, who embarked on a stalking campaign of Phaedriel several months ago (and has edited both Phaedriel and Kyoko's talkpages). At any rate, the user just seems to be stirring up the pot. Will ^(talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked a week already by another admin, would support longer if it continues. Can you narrow down which user is the puppetmaster? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the one week block already. I'm not sure who the puppetmaster is, but it's evident it is a banned user. Will ^(talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Johnny the Vandal, doing his usual. One glance at the edit history is enough. Blocked indef, as well as his other socks - Alison ^❤ 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody close my account.

Last time I tried to help, I was an obvious liar and a jerk who wastes time. If that's the case, fine. Someone close this account. I tried to help on this website, honestly, but if "POV Pushers" like me, even though it isn't my intention it dosent matter because then I'm WikiLawyering, be "fought off" and banned, then fine. I contribute and get nothing but why I'm a terrible editor. I should expect to be called on when I push a POV and then WikiLawyer and say "I didn't mean to".

Someone should actually enforce WP:BLOCK and disable this account. — Selmo ^(talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Walk away from the keyboard. Stop using the account. It's that easy. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If that really how you feel you may want to read meta:right to vanish, however I would hope you would think it over.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colour me confused. I show this is the first edit Selmo has made in 93 days. Is this regarding a new issue, or is it left over angst from the dispute with Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Funny4life

Resolved

 – Messages left for editor. Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please have a look at Funny4life (talk · contribs). Warned several times, keeps on vandalising, even user pages. -- Matthead  DisOuß   23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, his edits to Nicolaus Copernicus do not seem like vandalism to me. His edits to userpages seems to be because he is new and didn't know to use the talk page. However, it is approaching 3RR on the Copernicus article, I'd take it up on the talk page and discuss it there. Useight (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Useight on this issue. User page edits like [83], [84] are classic confused new user. Likewise, the editor might not be aware that their edits to Nicolaus Copernicus‎ are verging on a WP:3RR violation. I went ahead and left messages for Funny4life on both of these issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the editor received multiple messages on the issues in question. Hopefully that will resolve the trouble.

81.145.240.18

Resolved

 – IP already blockedKralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.145.240.18 Talk
Streak of vandalism covering 3 months after his last temporary block. Take a look if you wish. --Illnab1024 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like OwenX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already blocked [85] the address for 24 hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue5864

This user is making legal threats after being previously blocked (diff) for legal threats Alexfusco5 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by me. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user last night for legal threats and unblocked him today following his retraction. El_C 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been filed against this user, so even though he has retracted his newest legal threat I am uncomfortable unblocking at this time. However, because it is often standard practice to allow those accused of sockpuppetry to provide evidence in their defense, I am submitting this for review by other administrators. I will be busy for the rest of the night so it is not necessary to contact me before unblocking if that is what seems most prudent. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked. He's now invoking Jimbo in his threats. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CBW. Keep blocked. He makes threat after threat, and then denies making them. Assuming that Blue = Darrin McGillis, as he has claimed, not only is he editing with a conflict of interest (posting tabloid charges which he keeps on his own website), but you all need to read this; read it all. Do we want this person editing here? Antandrus (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the way the editor has handled himself so far, no. I have found people with an axe to grind in the real world rarely do well as editors. Has done nothing but POV push and Wikilawyer so far. Maybe in a month or so if he gets the idea that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, then he can come back. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his talk page to prevent further legal threats. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.98.226.146‎

Resolved

 – Inactive vandal, AIV is the place to go if he continues.

81.98.226.146‎ (talk · contribs) continues to vandalize pages, even though several users have warned him to stop multiple times. Some of today's most recent edits were [86] and [87] and [88]. Please, take a look. Grey Maiden ^talk 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits were made about an hour or so ago, and it appears that the user is inactive. If he does make disruptive edits again, see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and make a report there, rather than here. Spebi 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Appletrees

Appletrees has asked that I mention his situation here. It looks like he was blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (who then immediately went offline) for "edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks". It looks to me that he reverted twice and made a few comments on the talk page. Apparently the article is subject to many editwars, as there are special rules written on top of the talk page. I don't think Appletrees should be blocked since he didn't violate 3RR. His comments on the talk page weren't the nicest, but I don't know if they're blockworthy. I've been an admin for less than 24 hours and I definitely don't want to just wheel war and unblock him. I'm mentioning this here as per Appletrees' request and to get another opinion on the matter. Useight (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave blocked. Appletrees is a frequent Japan/Korea edit warrior and knows full well that the slightest impropriety on his part will get him blocked. As a new admin, I commend you on having the sense to ask before acting, something I think is lacking in the sysop corps. Good judgement. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not responding earlier, it was late last night and I missed Appletree's unblock request before I went to bed. I've responded on his talk page [89]. No objections if somebody else wants to review the block, but from my side, at this point, I'd let it stand. Note that there is a special zero-tolerance edit warring policy which I've been trying to keep enforced on the article in question (with the consent of some other admins and what I take to be silent assent by the Arbcom). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Merbabu pointless repeat vandaling disruption of Mumia Abu-Jamal Featured Article Candidacy discussion

Resolved

 – complaint opened by banned user, IP blocked, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[90] and [91]. Editor has never made any constructive contributions to development of the article and made solely negating contributions in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs)

This IP address, User:74.200.75.5, appears to be here for disruptive purposes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor is reverting an IP - any truth to his assertion that the IP is that of a banned user? If so, then nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The page he's talking about was created by User:PhiladelphiaBreeze, one of many disruptive sockpuppets. I suspect they're linked. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's another User:DavidYork71 sock which been attacking the Mumia Abu-Jamal page. I can spot him a mile away. There's plague. lol As for the FAC page - I'd suggest seeking the opinion of Dr Kiernan (main recent contributor to Mumia Abu-Jamal). Not sure what else I need to say at this stage, but happy to answer any other questions. --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)It's User:DavidYork71. He'a avoiding a community ban and Merbabu, the editor he is complaining about, is his old adversary and one of the editors who spots his various socks. I consider this report some sort bizarre revenge. Sarah 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Dmcdevit as an open proxy. Sarah 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cody Finke has returned

Resolved

 – Blocked and labeled as a sock of MascotGuy

Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy is like a cockroach.

Codyfinke2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned sock puppet has returned from the hinterlands of banishment seeking further exile...

• codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are others, but i can't remember them. He has been linked to MascotGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Next time he's blocked, could he be account creation blocked, please? Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He was this time: standard practice for sockpuppets. Autoblock isn't totally effective, and there are ways around ACB. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jtrainor

Is this an attack page? Corvus cornix_talk 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm deja vu. I seem to remember this coming up on here before, although i've no idea when, and looking at his/her talk its come up on there a couple of times, and since at least one ANI discusion that i can remember, plus those on his talk page, its unlikely he's gonna change it. As for whether of not i could be construed as an attack, that quite difficult. Perhaps if User:MER-C and User:A Man In Black could be asked if they find it offensive--Jac16888 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)"Category:FYAD" does not strike me as something that's appropriate for a userpage. sh¤y 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What's FYAD? Corvus cornix_talk 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[92]? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Urban dictionary it's either stands for Fuck You And Die, or it's a cool place to hang out, either way, neither is a personal attack. However, saying that certain editors, and administators no less, should not be able to use the edit button, is commenting on the contributor and not the content. Whether or not it's a personal attack, ignore that fact, it is a clear intent to draw attention to himself that he dislikes those editors and thats not what the userpage is supposed to be used for. I'm removing it. — Save_Us_229 05:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did this need to be an ANI thread? Afterall, this is not the wikipedia complaints department. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly normal concern to bring to AN/I. — Save_Us_229 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because its commonly done does not make it the proper venue. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Name a better venue. — Save_Us_229 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know how this goes. The user will revert the page, and people will stand around and do exactly nothing about it. Oddly, we've tried taking this to MFD before, and been told that wasn't the right venue either. With all due respect, sometimes our bureaucracy here makes former communist nations look like well-oiled machines of government. If it's inappropriate, remove it, and if he revert wars, as he's done, bring it here to see the user blocked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For a case of incivility? WP:WQA. Or perhaps reopen the discussion on the user's talk page. It seems the former discussion of this went stale there and noone bothered to discuss this with him again before trying to escalate this into an "incident". I can't see a reason to claim this as an incident that needs admin intervention until the user does something needing intervention, ie. edit wars over the removal. Dispute resolution IS a good thing, we should try it before bring people to "court". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FYAD is a forum on the Somethingawful forums, and with regards to the two users listed, I have stated that if they complain (they havn't), they'll be removed. There, problem resolved. How about you go fix up something that's actually a problem now instead of harrassing me? And you are quite correct that I will revert any specious edits to my user page. Jtrainor (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John on another delete rampage

Prester John (talk · contribs) has just been unblocked, and is immediately going through my history list deleting all content that I've added. Just over a week ago, he was at it (previous ANi report here). He received this admin warning, which was ignored. The deletions are happening right this minute. I am rushing to get some diffs together. Will post back again soon. Lester 05:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: the warning was given by Goodshoped35110s who is not an administrator. Ariel♥Gold 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for disruption, and he's claimed to have quit the project. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• 05:21, 9 December 2007. Article: John Brumby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reverted my additions. Prester had never been to this article before his previous revert stalking attack last week.
• 05:16, 9 December 2007 Article: John Stone (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Again, Prester John had never been to this old article until a few minutes after I added content there.
• 05:13, 9 December 2007. Article John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He deleted content I'd recently added.
• 05:11, 9 December 2007. Article: Ian Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reverted my content. Prester only arrived at this article a few minutes after I'd got there, having never been there before.Lester 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First and only additions after a 72 hour block. I suggest a good long healthy block. Might suggest longer, but Lester doesn't have a history as a saint either. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello 'Evil Sparten'. Yes, I got blocked in August for 3RR, and learned my lesson and have not repeated that. I believe Prsster John wants to hover over me deleting everything I add, hoping that I leave Wikipedia. If he had a content dispute, there are other ways Prester could have engaged the community. There were active discussions about the content in most of the above listed articles, which Prester did notjoin. This is just plain bullying.Lester 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Prester John appears to be removing properly sourced information, and he seems to possibly be stalking Lester (talk · contribs). [93][94][95][96] I recommend that somebody look at this closely and decide whether a block is warranted; I have left him a warning.[97] - Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Prester John is a prolific antagoniser. Repeated appeals from numerous users on many occasions have often seen him escape serious sanction by the skin his teeth (at times, on the back of shallow, quickly discarded promises to participate more responsibly next time). This latest behaviour is atrocious and, given his history, should be dealt with seriously. His toxic continuation of bad behaviour, which adds nothing to the goal of producing an encyclopedia, must be comprehensively curtailed. Escalating blocks had been previously initiated after heavily disruptive editing bouts. Suggested block level: 1 month. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that after reviewing his recent contributions it appears he is deleting well sourced content, even when his edit summary indicates a simple wording change would have resolved his issue. It also appears that the majority of these revisions are material Lester has introduced. His one other significant edit was also a reversion, however, the edit was performed by an IP not Lester. It appears Prester John may have ongoing difficult understanding that reverts are not a proper way to build the encyclopedia. Since this disruption comes immediately after coming off a block for identical reasons, I support re-blocking with a longer expiration. I agree that a month seems reasonable. Shell ^babelfish 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a regular around the Australian noticeboard, I must confess there have been frequent complaints of varying merit flying in both directions between Prester John and Lester. Upon review of the four edits, it would indeed seem that this behaviour is pre-meditated and deliberate, and one could certainly infer some bad faith upon the part of Prester John given his recent MfD's which resulted in his 72-hour block. However, given my previous involvement (recently closing an MfD about Prester John and his userspace), my comments should be taken with a calcuated pinch of salt and I most certainly wouldn't consider using my administrator tools in the situation. I think the most important aspect to consider here is the possible parallels between Prester John's disruptive MfD nominations which resulted in the recent block (clearly endorsed by consensus) and these removals. Daniel 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A month it is? Would someone just perform the block then? I agree whole-heartedly. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree on a month block if an admin is willing to take that bold step and actually do it. This user is far too disruptive; to start stalking editors as soon as he returns from a previous block is just plain ridiculous. — Save_Us_229 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom election drama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Just a mistake really. Can't we just drop it? R. Baley (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Surprise! Does this happen every year, I wonder? Removing someone who makes a lot of contributions to an arbcom alection as WP:POINT seems fairly commensense, yet quite political. Yet we have a user [98] who opposed every single arbcom member with the statement Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Sounds like making a point. Wonder if it should be removed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say a better idea would be to ignore it until the vote is closed - maybe consider blocking him if he gets too disruptive, but otherwise ingonre him. Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Users can vote for or against candidates for whatever reason they want to. I voted support for endlessdan cause he cracked me up. Does that make me disruptive? As long as this user isn't spamming the voting, which it doesn't appear he is, and I would think that he's rather harmless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep and add a comment afterwards saying that he has commented the same way everywhere if it is unclear. On second thought, let everyone see his "arbcom is evil" comment and decide what they want. Leave it there; the last thing I'd want to do is encourage accusations of censorship and martyrdom from him. He'll probably get bored enough when nobody responds to him. Oh, and he's an admin BTW (a little odd to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize my expressing my opinion of the ArbCom warranted a section on the Admin notice board. I've been an active participant to this project for a long time. Much longer than anyone who has chosen to stick their noses in my votes here or on my talk page. I just did some looking at contribution histories, and I'd been an admin for years before any of these accounts had their first edits. I believe none of these contributors remember how this project operated before the ArbCom. I do. In my opinion, life before the ArbCom was MUCH better than it has become since. That is one of the reasons why I think anyone who would want to be associated with that body lacks enough judgment to serve as an arbitrator over my actions. I really don't want to discuss this anymore. I've voted. I'm not changing my votes. I have no intention of going off the cliff and deleting the main page anytime this week. And I don't think I'm above the law. I just think a better way to handle the issues that come before the committee can and should be found. Gentgeen (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, this has zero effect on the outcome. Candidates who have massive support by the community will not be affected by this, and those who will be affected... well, let's say that they probably weren't going to be elected anyways. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it does; Mr. Wales considers the lot of candidates above 50%, and makes a value judgment for them. If someone is right on the line, this could make up a difference. And please, Gentgeen, I didn't have to stick my nose out very far when your vote was hanging off every page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's thirteen candidates currently with ≥ 50% support. There's only five slots available on the ArbCom. Barring an unprecedented expansion, it really is a non-issue. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone archive/remove this thread already, using ANI to complain about votes is an inappropriate use of the board. R. Baley (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that by complaining about #Arbcom election drama, User:The Evil Spartan is creating more drama.

I have a sad piece of news to report. I just found out, User:The Evil Spartan is no longer with us, God rest his soul.T (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly not what I wanted to do... I just wanted to point out that this isn't that really that big of a deal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm...are you saying you are a sock of User:The Evil Spartan? " Not that there is anything wrong with that" Per rules, socks are okay sometimes. I have had User:RWV, for example. Nevermind, I think I am confused.T (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh... if he said the same thing on every nomination page, isn't the effect completely negated, making this a non-issue even further? EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, barring the ultra-hypotheticals mentioned above. Which is why no-one has given a crap until now. Grandmasterka 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bruce1333 edit warring

First on the Antichrist article, which is all documented in the user's RfC; recently, he's been edit warring on said RfC. I reverted him three times, but he persists in disruptive behaviour. I feel there isn't anything else I can do, as all attempts to communicate with the user have been rejected. Hence, I think administrator intervention is necessary. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IP socks of banned User:Mariam83 on rampage

Despite being banned months ago, Mariam83 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) has been on a rampage tonight. Using four different IP addresses (see below), this disgruntled editor made around 70 reverts to various articles. Initially most of the edits were reverting Mariam83's favourite articles back to their preferred versions, however after C.Fred (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semi-protected those articles, Mariam83 started reverting random edits made by those editors who had reverted, reported, or blocked the various socks. The socks used tonight include the following (all four were blocked by different admins for 3 to 31 hours):

• 64.219.76.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.89.175.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.91.120.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.156.123.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

When dealing with Mariam83 socks, I normally just roll my eyes and go crazy on the 'undo' button. However, this time Mariam83 uncharacteristically left the following message [99] on a talk page: "You cant block me, I'm unstoppable. You just try! I will make your wikipedian life a living hell BUDDY! he he he :-)" Unfortunately I fear that Mariam83 is correct about being unstoppable. To date there are approximately 106 suspected socks of this user. (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 for the entire list.) The amount of time editors have spent reverting and blocking these 106 socks is probably quite breathtaking.

Is there anything we can do to stop or at least slow down this banned editor? --Kralizec! (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to research and write the above, Mariam83 has another 29 reverts via 68.90.62.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)