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

User:Skookum1

I have indef. blocked Skookum1 (talk · contribs) for this legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Naconkantari 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Very confused. Skookum1 has been here since 2005, has over 12000 edits, contributions to FA, images, etc. The other user RascalPatrol is a SPA for all intents and purposes, with all but a very few of his less than 50 edits being to the article that lead to this dispute. An indefinate block seems very strong for a legal threat, especially with no warnings or the like. I can't how WP:BLOCK or WP:LEGAL supports this at all. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read through that, and it is not clear at all that this was a legal threat. A legal threat is something like "I'm going to sue you." or "I'm asking the cops to arrest you." but saying that "My lawyer friend thinks this will be very interesting to the court." is a passive observation of consequences, not an affirmative statement that you are planning to ake any action. So, where is the bar drawn? --BenBurch 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the parts of WP:LEGAL about taking it to private email and not thrashing it out here? The parts about how legal threats are used to intimidate others so as to get your way on articles or disputes? Isn't that exactly what this edit was? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly a legal threat, and certainly block-worthy. I'm kind of undecided about whether an indef was appropriate for a user with what seems to be a decent contribs history. Any previous editorial malpractice from this user pre-block? Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It was definitely a passive-aggressive legal threat, but I think that in this particular case, a stern warning and a shortening of the block is in order, unless there have been prior issues. —bbatsell ¿? 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall asking if it was a legal threat. I seem to recall asking what specific part of the policy on blocking or legal threats calls for banning a longterm contributor in good standing indefinitely. I understand that a block for a legal threat CAN be placed without warning, although NPA6 exists just for that. But I am concerned at the definition of "serious legal threat", which is unnecessarily vague. Is this basis enough for an indef block on a longterm contributor in a conflict with a SPA? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See this from WP:BLOCK: "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users that make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information." - that would seem pretty clear. On balance I agree with Bbatsell about the correct course of action to take. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been the case that users are indef-blocked for legal threats for as long as I can remember. If that's not clear in the policies, then perhaps it should be. —bbatsell ¿? 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And having read Moreschi's edit, I see that it is explained in the BP. —bbatsell ¿? 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not clear in the policies. "Serious" legal threats? In this particular context, there isn't a "serious legal threat". There is an assertional stance that a lawyer outside the bounds of an actual court or any precedent of law found something interesting. If indef blocking is the de facto standard, then it needs to be clearly spelled out. As it stands, WP:Legal gives no clear idea of what a legal threat actually is, a point I find astonishing. A legal threat is a warning or statement that if you do or don't do this, person will conduct legal action. If we're using the MeatBall:LegalThreat definition, that should be said...but the policy states that users may be blocked, not are always blocked, and that only severe threats warrant indef bans. We should act to clarify the language. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a week off, perhaps, will do this user no harm? Legal threats like that are unacceptable but I do feel that a user with a good contribs history having a row with an SPA should have one more chance. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi above. --SunStar Net^talk 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They can make a request on their Talk page and if they appear to be sincere in promising not to do it again, they can be unblocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1 has contacted me by email (his emails are as aggressive as his editing style), and I suggested that if he explains on his Talk page that he retracts his legal threat, I will unblock him. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine. The typical way that blocks for legal threats are done, in my experience at least, is that the user will remain blocked indefinitely while the legal threats are outstanding. Express withdrawal of the threats will typically lead to unblocking. --bainer (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great resolution of this matter! GOOD JOB!

you get a cookie! --BenBurch 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, I trust Zoe. I just think the policy should be more explicit so that people will understand they cannot do stupid things of this nature. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Skookum1 made a legal threat. He threatened to report a person's behaviour to an organization that the person belongs to. In this case, the organization happens to be the Law Society of Upper Canada. This does not seem to be much different from threatening to report a physician's behaviour to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. You could call it a threat, but it's a stretch to call it a legal threat. Kla'quot 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to call one's employer if an editor doesn't like somebody else's editing is as egregious a fault as threathening legal action against them. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Law Society of Upper Canada isn't the person's employer either; it is a regulatory body. Given the diff, I'm not even sure if I would say any action was being explicitly threatened. I'm not saying whether the block was right or wrong, but I think it's important that the reason be better-articulated so that the user can sincerely acknowledge that he did it and won't do it again. Kla'quot 09:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this was clearly not a legal threat. It seems to me that User:Zoe saw the word "Law" and (mis)interpreted it without regard to its context. I oppose this block and think it should be rescinded, or at the very least reduced to a fixed duration. —Psychonaut 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Threatening to report any editor for on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority is simply beyomd the pale unless the activitives have been illegal and it's the Police you are bringing in. Anything else is wholly unacceptable and completely blockworthy until such times as the threat is rescinded. Spartaz 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is the de facto policy, the written policies need to be clarified. No personal attacks says that "Extreme attacks, in particular legal threats and death threats, can be dealt with by blocking the offending user without warning." I don't see Skookum1's comment as falling into the category of an extreme attack. As some readers of Skookum1's statement think it contained a threat and others don't, it may be best to treat the situation as a misunderstanding. If Skookum1 can promise that he won't be reporting anyone's on-wiki activities to an off-wiki authority, I'd consider the problem solved. Kla'quot 19:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite block of a contributor likely to be helpful to Wikipedia is less likely to help than harm Wikipedia. Perhaps a 2 week block would be more productive? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of Giano II

I have blocked Giano II (talk · contribs · count) for 24 hours for making personal attacks against User:Doc glasgow here. This is explicitly defined on WP:NPA as an example of a personal attack that includes "Negative personal comments and 'I'm better than you' attacks". Naconkantari 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have got to be kidding! If I had a dime for everytime someone "attacked" me as was supposedly done by Giano in the instance you have cited, well, I'd have a lot of dimes, let's just put it that way. Let's be absolutely sure that NPA and civility blocks are completely clear cut when blocking established editors in the future. I can't even see a reason that the example you reference would be qualifing grounds for blocking a troll.--MONGO 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing this block, and Giano's history, I don't think this was likely to be an effective block (from the standpoint of reducing overall drama and increasing overall effectiveness). There has to be a better way to get Giano to be more than just a valuable article writer, to instead be a welcome part of our entire community. Warning for PA, and blocking for PA, just don't work with Giano. I therefore decided to unblock. I expect that will not be a popular view among everyone but I think we really need to try other measures. If I am overturned, so be it but that's my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Lar, very astute of you to spot it so quickly, and thank you too "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name" for giving my edit publicity I could never have dreamt of. However, I doubt poor Doc will be so grateful to you. Relax the rest of you "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name" was not part of an IRC plot, just another of those who should never have been promoted and let loose on the rest of us, ignore him, don't give him too much of a hard time, blame those who voted for him. Giano 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't quite the response I was hoping for. It just gives fuel to people who say bad things about you, Giano. I've reached out to you privately as well. I speak for many, I think, whey I say I really would like to find a way for you to be a positive contributor again... but attacking Naconkantari is not the way to do it. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you are asking. I have no criticism of lar's action. I contemplated doing it myself for the sake of the project, but decided I'd stay out of it.--Doc^g 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the to-me-near-indecipherable post above, I'd have hesitated to issue a block on that initial snark. The bits of the post above I do understand, however, are very nearly blockworthy in my opinion. - brenneman 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano, wiki pages are a written medium. You don't need to be able to pronounce someone's name in order to spell it, especially when it's written in front of you. (I don't know whether you pronounce your name Gee-ar-no or Gy-ann-o, but I don't need to in order to communicate politely). Referring to someone as "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name", especially when you've just been blocked for making personal attacks, seems to me a very bad idea – Gurch 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that last comment from Giano was in itself incivil and yet another block-worthy personal attack. Does this have to go on? There are better ways to discuss things and sort out problems. Moreschi ^Deletion! 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse re-block. Giano, I think highly of you and your contributions, but please keep your discourse civil. Snarkiness and off-the-cuff commentary meant to offend others isn't helping build an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that I misread Brenneman's posting in that you were not re-blocked, but my intent is the same. Please cool it with the comments, Giano. -- Samir धर्म 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no comment block itself. (Although for the record, I have not been party to, nor aware of, any pre-block discussions.) However, I think there are real problems here. Lar is right, blocking Giano is counter-productive: it neither causes Giano to halt the incessant incivility, nor does it reduce the general wikidrama. I blocked him several months ago (as a then uninvolved admin) and learned that lesson the hard way. That's why I asked Jimbo to unblock him the other day, However, there is another problem that is increasing tension: that is the general perception that Giano is getting special treatment. He is incivil and aggressive, but every time he is blocked a number of users point out the (no doubt also real) problems with the blockers, the medium and the discussion, and do anything rather than say that Giano needs to knock it off. (Sure IRC can be a problem. Perhaps the exact thing that Giano is blocked for isn't quite right. But there IS also undeniably a huge problem with his behaviour - just go through his edits and look!). Personally, we really need to move on from here. We need people to stop blocking Giano, and stop provoking him (and, yes, he has sometimes been trolled). But we also need him to stop provoking them - and stop spoiling for a fight (why on earth was he on my talk page today, I've stayed clear of his for weeks??). Please, rather than fly at the other side, can Giano's friends try to influence him for the best? And can those who are seen as 'opposing him', please knock it off. The only other end-game here is that the temperature rises until someone leaves or gets banned. I, for one, don't want that. Let's all try to de-escalate this thing whilst we can. I'm willing to work with anyone who's willing to see wrong on all sides.--Doc^g 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So am I. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We need people to stop blocking Giano ... no, we need Giano to act like a grown up. Proto::► 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse block Giano seems to be a productive contributor, but incivility is not tolerated, at any rate, so I endorse the block. --SunStar Net^talk 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once more: is everyone sniffing glue? (Note: that's a question.) Am I around the largest single group of computer-connected blushing violets in the world? Your responses to someone being catty are to block? You must be joking or ... or... invoking-standards-you-don't-believe-because-you-are-upset (there: I avoided maligning anyone). Cyde has been absolutely horrible to me. Kelly has been to me. Some of you have been. Life goes on. Do you support censorship of television, too, so that there are no scenes that could be upsetting? If you want Wikipedia to have a society and community of editors, then that means having one where people are occasionally snippy, occasionally unpleasant. No, you don't get to block them for that. Please, please, please read WP:NPA. In "extreme cases" a block might issue. An extreme case, is, oh, an adenoidal 16 year old writing, "You are a child molestor" someplace permanent. It is not, "You have an unpronouncable name" (which isn't even a personal attack in the first place) or "I don't expect Doc to understand not talking behind peoples' backs." The standard you are all applying would have nearly every one of you yourselves already blocked for things you have said in the past. You may not like Giano, but don't sniff glue and propose standards you have no interest in. Geogre 14:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I neither endorse nor condone any of the blocks of Giano, except the 3-hour block for spamming logs, which I think was acceptable (though is not a step I would have taken myself). Since Giano appears to be leaving anyway, I feel the indefinite block current in place is probably unnecessary; however, I don't think it's hindering anything productive either, so I do not wish to question it. And no, I am not sniffing glue – Gurch 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on the "camps"

Does anyone see me as being in either camp here? Because having stayed mostly out of this, and being happy to say that I respect people on either !side of the debate, I'm "neutral enough" I think. - brenneman 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you as a neutral party, though I'm not sure how much that counts for. I didn't consider myself to be in a "camp", either, but Giano appears adamant that I'm on the opposite side of the debate to him (given his claims and reply to my subsequent explanation and question) – Gurch 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are a lot more diffs than those. Read the whole thread, else it won't all make sense – Gurch 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you around, and you generally seem pretty reasonable. As far as this discussion, you're an unknown quantity, in my memory, which seems to imply that you're neutral, although objectively I have to admit that's hardly an absolute proof. Luna Santin 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Now what do you suppose Cyde meant here [1] just before I was blocked? The IRC admin gang want me banned, not blocked, banned. Kelly Martin is saying openly on IRC she wants to start a book on when - not if. I'm afraid half of you haven't a clue what is going on here, and the half that do are keeping very quiet indeed. Giano 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Giano, any chance you could stay off Cyde's talk page, (I've already asked him to reciprocate). You may find it difficult to assume I'm acting in good faith here, but I really really do want this to de-escalate. Any help you could give would be most appreciated. --Doc^g 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, I use IRC, and Cyde does not speak for me. Kelly Martin does not speak for me. Personally, I think it would be a damned shame if you were blocked -- you've offered a lot to the encyclopedia, and I hope that you continue to do so. That said, I am disappointed in a number of people, and I wish we could all put a little more effort towards working together to get past this and keep going in this group endeavor. Luna Santin 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, right, that's probably enough for me to qualify as not being in the supposed "anti-Giano" camp given my reply to that post. Can I take it as read that my previous interactions with Cyde and Kelly are well known, and that there can be no accusations of mateship there? By anyone I mean, not just Giano? - brenneman 00:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• No to be honest I know nothing about you, unless people come stomping onto my talk page first, I rarely have interaction with anyone. People have to seek me out first as a rule. Giano 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing up there Gurch, I'm talking to Aaron Giano 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll move my comment out of the way – Gurch 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I have never been to the admin channel, so I don't know if there's any kind of conspiracy going on there or not. But I do see that Giano is uncivil, and that is, obviously, not helping the whole situation. So please, be a bit more friendly, even to those yo do not like. --Conti|✉ 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole problem is that those who frequent IRC are very uncivil there about many including me. This thing is about double standards, lying and cheating by the same people who come here and pontificate and then plot behind our backs. Giano 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you could establish that some people have done that. But I assert again, I am an individual, and these people do not speak for me. When have I done any of these things you just mentioned? Luna Santin 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Many just sit there and don't question the behaviour they witness. Why for instance have you never questioned Kelly Martin's presence there? Giano 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I haven't felt any pressing need to. In the course of my work on the wiki, I focus on a few main tasks: recent changes patrol, unblock requests, maintaining WP:PAIN, occasional attempts at resolving disputes, this one included, and trying to do my part to make sure that the admin backlog doesn't get too far down the tubes. I do not claim to be the Savior of All Great Justice on the Wiki -- quite to the contrary, I do my part, and I rely on others to do theirs. This is a collaborative project, and that means that I must sometimes collaborate with people I won't always agree with. Luna Santin 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead by example. "They're doing it, too!" might be true, but it's still not a good reason to behave that way. If you are civil, people won't be able to complain about your incivility anymore and will hopefully spend their time on the actual discussion about what you are complaining. --Conti|✉ 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset indentOk, wait, stay on target. Almost there. I'm not going to deny that there are issues around IRC, but I'd like to focus on just one thing. I'd like to get general consensus on perceptions of incivilty, blocking, camps, etc. While I've been accused of being camp plenty of times, the only time I've been said to have "cronies" were those who've not been called "facilitators of incivilty" or somesuch. I'd like to get handed the nuclear football, and hold the block switch on Giano. Err, II. Whatever. The number of blocks I've handed out to established users is pretty thin and since I've been warned by arbcom about my own civilty there's little chance I can be accused of being thin-skinned. So, any objections? That for the time being at least nobody else bollocks or unbollocks the G-man? - brenneman 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try Aaron. Sadly people get what they deserve in life [2] Very well, Kelly and her cronies win. Farewell Wikipedia Giano 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Until now I had respected Naconkantari as a one-man anti-vandal army and one of the good guys. I strongly endorsed his Rfa, even though I believe we need more writers at the helm than vandal thwackers. Now I see him make a highly questionable block of a highly regarded writer, who has been subjected to an obvious campaign of harassment in an apparently sucessful attempt to drive him away. The actions of Chairboy and his like really don't surprise or disappoint me...they are merely pageboys with ambitions above their proper station. But you, Nacon, were a knight in the eyes of many! It saddens me to again see power, especially petty power, corrupt a once noble and productive Wikipedian. I can now count the number of admins I have any regard for on a single hand. My disgruntlement turns into disgust and disillusionment.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed third side

Hang on a minute, I don't agree with anyone now... I'm confused, which side am I on again? – Gurch 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll pick you to be on my side. Giano 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your generosity. Unfortunately, I don't seem to actually agree with you at the moment – Gurch 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On the one side, we have people who won't let go of hurtful feelings. On the other side, we have other people who won't let go of their own hurtful feelings. On the gripping side, we seem to have Gurch. Luna Santin 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And Luna Santin, it would seem. I suppose I ought to clarify my (our?) position: I have no problem with, and fully support the continued existence of, an administrator-only IRC channel to which access is restricted to trusted users. I have used the administrator-only IRC channel in the past and found it to be very useful. I do not endorse the activities, past and current, of certain users (not everyone) who frequently use this channel. I am concerned by the lack of civility displayed by certain users on both "sides" of the debate. I recognize the issues that this causes and the need to remedy them – and I will accept changes to the way in which the channel works in order to achieve this, including but not limited to the introduction of public logging if necessary. However, I do not believe that the channel should be removed altogether, as I believe that such a move would impact those who use it in a legitimate and productive manner – Gurch 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can add a few words, I really hope nobody will be taken by the whim to reblock Giano, as if this really would solve anything. To begin with, I'm quite shocked with the block by Naconkantari; it almost seems to me, and I'm really sad to have to say this, that there is a sort of impulse to block good editors, while blatantly uncivil and pov-pushing editors are completely ignored, and this explains why the talk pages of many articles have fulled themselves with tons of hate speech. Giano may have a difficult character, but he's perfectly capable of collaborating in bettering articles, which is, IMO, the only thing that wikipedia exists for. All this speaking of blocks hasn't done anything in easying relations in the community; quite the contrary. May I give a small piece of advice? Lets cut it here, and start editing - after all, shouldn't it be our chief occupation. I hope I haven't offended anybody with this message; if I did, I can only say it wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry. Ciao, --Aldux 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving this conversation now, not just because it is way past my bedtime, but because until we can openly publish the IRC logs proving once and for all the disgusting behaviour or "IRCadmins" leading editors further debate here is futile. But if people think I am uncivil they are going to be very shocked when the logs come out. Giano 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Many just sit there and don't question the behaviour they witness. Why for instance have you never questioned Kelly Martin's presence there? Giano 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano posted this in the previous section, but I'm copying it here as I feel I should address it here.

As I say above, I do not endorse the activities, past and current, of certain users of the administrator-only IRC channel. I have not responded to these activities before now primarily because of a desire to stay uninvolved with such things, remain uncontroversial, and avoid stirring up conflict where none exists. I am presenting my opinion now in response to the conflict that has arisen, as I feel that at this point I should at least attempt to engage in discussion. I have argued a number of points, outlined my experience with the issue and made my position quite clear above. I don't intend to talk extensively about individual people unless they approach me first. However, as far as Kelly Martin is concerned, I have already said that I don't endorse some of her actions. When I first used the channel, Kelly Martin was an administrator with whom I had no previous contact; I certainly saw no reason to question anything at that point. Had I been particularly eager to participate in a dispute, I may well have chosen to question that and many other things at the same time as I decided that use of the IRC channel was no longer a good idea – at 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC). However, I did not; I decided to stay away from the situation, and I do not regret doing so – Gurch 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Giano has just announced his departure ([3]), after ArbCom announced a new civility parole remedy ([4]). As an uninvolved editor, the whole thing is a shame, but in the end, no matter how valuable an editor somebody is, they still have to play by the rules. The rules are flexible to a degree - productivity counts, circumstances such as prior baiting count - but one can't continually and flagrantly violate them again and again without eventually having to face the consequences. And regarding the role of admins in this and other cases - without naming names, I will say from personal experience that admins who 'adopt' users and defend them to the bitter end are doing just as much a disservice as those who will cut a user no slack at all. - Merzbow 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've mostly stayed out of the last couple of rounds of all of this as well, if only because I said pretty much everything I had to say in September and October and found myself fresh out of ideas. My compliments to those, such as Luna Santin and Gurch and Brenneman, who tried to buffer the situation and develop common ground. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I confess it took me a while to tumble to the fact that this whole thing had to end with de-escalation or bust. But kudos to those who never lost sight of that. Unfortunately, it looks like 'bust' though. Oh, well. That's honestly a pity.--Doc^g 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to stay out of this discussion, but I cannot. I don't know if this is still an ongoing discussion, but I want to express my opinion and voice myself. I believe that the reblocking of Giano was a characteristic expression of abuse of power. I endorse Aldux who asks here anybody to show a little more respect for the great editors of Wikipedia and let them do what they now best: edit! I think that actions like Giano's reblocking for a minor reason (I have difficulty to qualify his wording as a PA) achieve only one think: to make Wikipedia poorer and to deprive it of the persons who can make it richer. Thanks!--Yannismarou 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on IRC

1. Officially we are told that the 'Wikipedia' IRC channels are considered to be 'off Wikipedia', outside the control of ArbCom, and actions there thus not subject to results here (and vice versa). So... theoretically someone on IRC could call a Wikipedia user every manner of foul thing, give out their real life name and address, and openly hold a discussion about how best to murder them... and no action could be taken against their account on Wikipedia itself (though hopefully someone would at least notify the police). Correct? Yet... paradoxically, if someone took a log of any IRC discussion and publicly posted it on their equally 'off Wikipedia' web-site their account could then be banned. Is it me or is there a logical contradiction here?
2. I have in the past seen an admin chortling on IRC about how he just blocked a "douche" for being incivil to him... seemingly oblivious to the irony. This, and the fact that incidents like it happened nearly every time I opened the channel, is why I no longer use IRC and never asked for an invite when the admin channel was created. Now we are hearing (admittedly disputed) accounts of things which seem like incivility, failure to assume good faith, turning Wikipedia into a battleground, et cetera in reference to the admin channel. Are there standards of behaviour for the IRC channels? If so, where are they documented? Or do we really have a situation where users on Wikipedia are required to abide by all these behavioural niceties or be blocked... but admins are free to toss civility and cooperative fairness to the wind on an IRC channel where the only action forbidden is revealing what went on there?

Personally, I think that anything openly discussed in IRC or an outside web-site ought to be treated exactly as if it had taken place on Wikipedia... it is the same community and pretending to a fictional separation between 'PhilbertWikipedia' and 'PhilbertIRC' doesn't change that. If there are disputes about what was really said (no log available) or the actual identity of the person saying it then that can (and should) be excluded, but otherwise there seems no reason to create this dichotomy where 'on Wikipedia actions' are discussed and coordinated free from any sort of 'on Wikipedia consequences'. Failing that, IRC participants should be held to the same standards of behaviour as on Wikipedia... you make personal attacks, start planning how to 'get' someone, or call for 'vote stacking' on IRC then you get blocked from using the IRC channels just as you'd be blocked from Wikipedia if doing so there. If we are going to continue this 'separation' then the two areas should at least require the same standards of behaviour to be allowed to participate. Otherwise we create a situation where 'IRC users' can (and do) behave in fairly despicable ways and 'Wikipedia users' can (and just did) get blocked for anything which looks like it might be a civility violation if they get mad about it. Its inherently a double standard and it is wrong. --CBD 15:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was never comfortable with the notion that off-Wiki behavior doesn't count. There are problems with identifying who's who and gathering decent evidence though. He said, she said might be acceptable for government work, but we are used to having logged evidence of who did what and when. I would never want to see the door opened to trumped up charges. Fred Bauder 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement. It never made sense to me that someone's posts on Wikipedia Review didn't have real consequences in here, especially when those posts were really vicious. Oftentimes, we have the problem of identifying who is who, but a lot of people have admitted both here and there that, say, "Yalej" on Wikipedia is "Yalej" on Wikipedia Review. Actually, this has started to change. We've already seen Everyking lose his sysop bit over something he said on Wikipedia Review, and I think we're headed down the path of being held accountable for all actions that can be proven. "That can be proven" is the hard part, though. If it is something said in the #admins channel and a dozen people have logs, then yes, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but, if it is something said in private correspondence, either email or IRC PM, there's really no way to prove it unless the person has been signing their statements with PGP. I could see #admins logs being used (privately) by arbitrators (although posting them here for everyone to see would be a big no-no), but, I could never see private conversations being used, as those are utterly too easy to fake. --Cyde Weys 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. And the range of private communication methods available means that this fact that isn't limited to IRC or even to the Internet. Records of private communication between two people (one of which is not yourself) supplied by one of those people should never be fully trusted in any situation (even if both parties agree that the records are correct) – Gurch 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be joining Emmanuel Goldstein then, as this conversation is moving to policing thoughtcrime. Big Brother may be watching me, but my private conversations are private regardless of where I hold them. Am I now accountable to Wikipedia for what I tell my mother? The #wikipedia channel is 245 people at present; this doesn't qualify as private, and I wouldn't oppose people being held accountable for death threats, posting private information, etc there (although they would be kickbanned from the channel anyhow). #wikipedia-en-admins might be similar, might not be. Regardless, what people say in PM or in email is their own business and should be left that way. --Keitei (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstand what you're saying, but evidently one of us is somehow confused by the indenting, and/or you haven't read my comment below. My above comment is in reply to Cyde, not Fred Bauder or CBD. My comment is intended to flow from the last sentence of Cyde's comment. Please read them together. Cyde says that he "I could never see private conversations being used, as those are utterly too easy to fake", and I am agreeing with him and elaborating on the notion that conversations between two people can never be trusted. In other words I am asserting, for that reason and others, that the idea of accountability for a user's actions cannot be applied to a private conversation. Cyde asserted the same thing. So we are in agreement with you, yet you indented your reply below mine; if your comment is directed at someone else I'd appreciate it if you could make that a little more clear. Thanks – Gurch 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be completely misunderstanding, but Cyde's comment sounds to me like "private conversations can be easily faked and that's a shame", implying that if they weren't so unreliable, we'd want to hold people accountable for them. Your comment seemed to follow from that, that they can't be trusted and that's a shame (though that idea isn't really as implicit). Anyhow, my point wherever the indenting is: even if we could reliably prove what's said in private conversations, we shouldn't and shouldn't want to... Private conversations are private... I discuss Wikipedia with my mother, but it's not anybody's business but hers and mine what I say. All this "OMG PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WIKIPEDIA IN IRC" seems to be heading in a very thinkpol direction. (So perhaps I'm not addressing anyone in particular, just the desire to unearth all IRC logs we can muster, whether we should or not. :]) --Keitei (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall state it once more, then; the idea of accountability for a user's actions cannot be applied to a private conversation and I do not wish for it.

With regard to "unearthing" logs, I am of course completely against that and don't even understand why it is being discussed. I have no problem with introducing new rules to the channel which specify that conversations will be publically logged, or logged in a secure location accessible only to a certain group of people (e.g. ArbCom, or all administrators); I won't discuss the merits or drawbacks of such options now. But when I used that channel I did so on the understanding that conversations were not publically logged, as I'm sure many other uninvolved people have done. I may have made statements there which I do not wish to be available to the Internet in general. (And no, I'm not talking about a conspiracy to bring down Wikipedia, or whatever it is). If you look further up (and down) this page, you'll find other statements to this effect. I may possibly accept a review of channel logs by, say, the Arbitration Committee (though right now I'm disinclined to trust them with anything for various reasons), but public release of logs is a violation of privacy – Gurch 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(From the next section):

Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would take strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I did that on the understanding that a few dozen people might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation is an horrific invasion of privacy. (– Doc glasgow)

• Oh, heck no. Watch what you guys have done. CBD proposed that there be some accountability for malicious behavior on "Wikipedia" IRC channels, Fred said "off-wiki" actions should be accountable, and now Cyde is eagerly agreeing that behavior on outside websites be under scrutiny. The first part is fine, if we have accountability for the accountability (logs) or a guideline on Wikipedia in advance. The second part is utter nonsense and just another way to validate user hunters. Geogre 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment refers only to the IRC-channel-related discussion. I have no interest in policy, of lack of policy, regarding behaviour on off-wiki websites, since I don't discuss Wikipedia on off-wiki websites. I would not object to attempts to make off-wiki actions accountable, but nor do I endorse them. I do support a change in IRC channel rules if others judge it to be necessary – Gurch 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, me too. I've been working on the issue for a while, now. However, this was one of those games of rhetorical "telephone" where people were going to start with a valid premise and then, frankly IRC-style, end up at a complete non sequitur. No, we should not be blocking people for their actions at Wikipedia Review, or WikiTruth, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or their blogs, or LiveJournal, or e-mail, or wherever and whatever else they do. To even think so is nuts, and it appears that Cyde would have it. We can only have accountability for IRC (in either sense -- as a rationale for a positive action or as a rationale for an injunction) if we have logs with solid integrity or ops who will always act consistently in enforcing a set of guidelines of behavior. We have neither. Geogre 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, actually Cyde (and Fred) did not misconstrue me. I was talking about outside websites too. If this makes me "nuts" then so be it. To take an example 'from the other side'... I recall that Kelly Martin wrote something on an 'off Wiki' website which had people up in arms a while back. That wasn't on Wikipedia and or a 'Wikipedia affiliated' site (IRC channel or whatever)... but there was no question that it was Kelly. Should it really therefor be treated as 'separate'? Can people just 'hop over the wall' and break any Wikipedia rule they like... knowing that it is going to have the same impact as if done ON Wikipedia, but is now 'shielded'? Had Kelly been (to take the absurd example again) talking about killing another Wikipedian would it really make sense to say, 'Nope... no action can be taken on Wikipedia since this happened elsewhere'? You are absolutely correct about the dangers of this being abused to go 'hunting' for connections between 'WikipedianA' and 'OffWikipedianB'... but I think that can be prevented by disallowing such sleuthing entirely. In short, unless the Wikipedia account has identified the off Wikipedia account/text as being their creation it can't be used against them. Short of that it could never really be proven and is far too open to abuse... e.g. someone could go to MySpace right now and create a 'CBDunkerson' account and pretend to be me. That's probably the biggest reason this 'wall' exists, but there are plenty of cases where identity IS known with certainty. The invite only IRC admin channel being probably the clearest example. Even then the authenticity of the text would be an issue too... if there were only two users on the IRC channel (or they opened a private channel / conversed in e-mail / talked on the phone / et cetera) then there is no way to prove what was really said if they have different stories/logs/copies/whatever... but if their accounts match or there are a dozen matching 'witness statements' then that ought to be treated as fact. --CBD 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC logs, enough already

Perhaps a righteous and humane admin (or five) will simply post them. If any "good" admins have nothing to hide, they'll have nothing to fear. UsagiYoTruthBo 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, nothing to fear except a ban from IRC for posting channel logs, which as of this moment is (as far as I am aware) still a rule for that channel. Perhaps people don't want the hassle of having to deal with that? I have logs from a few months back myself, but so far all accusations I have heard that mention a specific date refer to periods that I do not have any record of, mainly periods within the last two weeks (I stopped using IRC December 6, anticipating that something like this would come up); so even if I were to post anything, it would apparently demonstrate little. I imagine there are others in the same situation – Gurch 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst we could agree that logs should be published, or widely available, in future, I would take strong objection to any retrospective change. I've chatted personally, and given some details of my family on IRC. I did that on the understanding that a few dozen people might overhear. But the notion that the logs of such conversations might be published on the open web, or given to people not party to the conversation is an horrific invasion of privacy. Change the rules if you must (although I'll probably stop using IRC if you do), but not retrospectively.--Doc^g 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important point, and I am inclined to agree. I have probably done similar things myself, though I can't immediately recall any. I will as I stated earlier accept a change of rules in the future if necessary – Gurch 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there's a stark difference between telling a few dozen people something they'll probably forget and never care to remember, and posting something online where it is publicly searchable and available to the entire world's population. Not that the entire world would care to know, but the difference is there. --Keitei (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, David Gerrard is treating the publishing of logs as a rationale for a block from Wikipedia. Either that or he is really misreading Giano's comments. Geogre 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think repeatedly spamming pages with content that has already been removed several times, despite being told to stop, is grounds for a temporary block, regardless of the nature of that content. This behaviour could also be considered disruption to illustrate a point – Gurch 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"14:01, 30 December 2006 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite"

Giano had already been blocked for 3 hours to stop the disruption, and unblocked. Unless he had resumed the posting of the logs, another block was IMHO inappropriate. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yyyyeah, except for the example El C points out where Kelly Martin went to 150 pages last week. Also, except for people who can go to IRC and make an announcement every 5 minutes for an hour and reach many more people. Also, except for the fact that Giano was not randomly "spamming." He was, instead, telling interested parties, which is not talk page spamming at all. (If four authors worked on an FA, and it went to WP:FAR, all four would be contacted. Giano got up to 11.) Yes, Giano was looking for a block. Yes, those who blocked him helped make his anger a Very Big Deal and helped us all go into a knot again. Geogre 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider Kelly Martin's actions to be equally unacceptable. I have no desire to see Giano's channel logs, yet I recieved them anyway. And if any user is "looking for a block", the fact that one was provided can hardly be considered a problem; surely the absence of a block would be worse? – Gurch 15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: A cursory scan of Kelly's contribs for the last few weeks didn't reveal 150 pages of comments last week (you'd think a cursory scan would be enough to reveal it, I would think), could you (or El_C, if you are reading this) provide a link? Thanks. My question is why is Giano "looking for a block"? Why can't he see the good in others that others see in him? Why does it have to be this way? ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you folks were ready to explode. You wanted to continue to be hypocritical about things, submit that Giano is the problem, to never admit that the issues are being unaddressed, and because he had decided that you were timorous or small minded, I expect. Guess what the response was: the very worst possible thing: another "Yeah, tough guy, we'll fight you!" block. How dumb do you have to be to try to play playground games like that? The guy edits away nicely, but no...that's not enough...no...every comment has to be watched so that there can be a chance to piss him off. He gets pissed off. Congratulations! How much skill did that take? Take a look at my talk page right now. Should I have blocked Ling Nut for that personal attack, or should I be attacked for my giving as good as I got? Well, what Giano was facing was his own comments getting blocks, while the people insulting him in the first place were just "doing their jobs." Yeah. Well, if we want our volunteers to stop volunteering, that's easily accomplished. That way we can have a WEB FORUM, which is what many of you seem to be on anyway. Geogre 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure who 'you folks' are. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you, or is critical of Giano is part of some overarching cabal. Who is ready to explode? Who is a hypocrit? My take on this is that we have a vicious circle caused by everyone (you and me included) jumping to the barricades to defend our side, and unable to say that there is fault on both sides. One side feels the injustice of the way people are out to 'get giano' and they thus defend him to the hilt, and look for the faults in his critics. The other side feel the injustice of Giano getting special defence and a perceived 'free pass', and they thus looks for ways of convincing the community that something needs to be done about the Giano problem. Oh, we'll disagree about which is the cause and which the effect, but each is feeding the other. Everyone needs to calm down and ask themselves: 'why are intelligent people, who we assume are acting in good-faith, and certainly are committed to this project, feeling the way they do? Why do they perceive the situation to be like that? How can I help to address their perceived concerns, even if I think they are baseless?' If we can do that, perhaps we can get to a place where Giano stops being incivil, and people let him alone. Then in a calmer atmosphere, we might look at some of the perceived structural issues that have got us here. But, while everyone is playing the 'we're the victims' blame game, there is little chance of that.--Doc^g 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, you outdented so I'm not sure if "because..." was answering my second question or something else. I'll repeat the first one, though. Can you or anyone else kindly give a ref to the 150 pages Kelly Martin went to last week? I just can't find that and would like to look at them to try to understand the impact and relevance. As for "Because..." (whether it was addressed to me or not), I'm with Doc, I'm not sure who "you folks" are either. I certainly don't think I fit your characterisations. I'm going to go back to something Anthere said that resonates for me, though... User:Anthere/Values#Caring_horizon. I commend it to everyone to read and think about. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lar. Please see your talk page for the answers. El_C 04:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, I know what you refer to now.... as you suspect, your post may get removed purely for lengthiness by me at some point, so here's a diff for reference: [5]. Thanks for sharing it. But I'm not seeing the connection here. Kelly started an RfC on her conduct, and wanted input. She left a very neutrally worded message on the talk page of (I believe) everyone that had voted in her ArbCom candidacy to then, positive or negative, letting them know of the RfC, and soliciting their feedback. I think people do things similar to that all the time. It seems pretty on-wiki and pretty in tune with soliciting input from others and improving ones self (all things you presumably approve of? Or do you prefer off-wiki communication? I'm not quite sure). I'm not sure I see the connection to what Giano did yet, except that both incidents were posts to a number of posts to talk pages. Did Kelly repost things when they were deleted? Did her comments contain excerpts of material that, per WMF policy as I understand it (although I could be wrong about it, I've been told it is WMF policy, not just freenode policy), isn't supposed to be republished? Did the comments contain anything other than a polite request for input? I in fact was thinking of doing that very thing on the meta talk pages of all the voters (including yours, which, strangely, was the tipping vote that sealed my loss, and turned up at 23:59 on the very last day of the vote, when there was no possible way to address whatever concern you had... just out of curiosity, how did you know to turn up then and put in the tipping vote? I looked for on-wiki communication on your talk and didn't see any...) in my recent failed steward candidacy. If I post to everyone's talk page that voted in my steward candidacy politely asking for feedback on what I can do to be a better candidate and more worthy of the post next year, is that behaviour equivalent to what Giano did, in your eyes? ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lar, Kelly's request went only to those who had voted 'oppose' (reverse chrono order). It was the first RfC I ever got, and had already left (unanswered) questions on her ArbCom questions page, and a comment with my vote. If it matters, I felt harrassed for my vote. Jd2718 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I placed it there with the expectation you'd do so. My comment was related to excessive duplicate talk page msgs rather than content (in her case, I believe it would have been better it simply note it on the Vote page, Village pump; even AN and ANI would make four and I think would have seen comparable exposure. But, anyway, my point was limited to that area. El_C 05:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So you agree then that it was an irrelevant comment, insofar as being a guide to how we should view what Giano did? Or perhaps you don't agree, if so could you clarify the relevancy? I'm interested in your input on the other questions I asked you as well. ++Lar: t/c 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, she did end up, partially, using it as a platform to call Geogre a "liar," but that's as much as I wish to discuss the matter at this time. With regards to your candidacy, I was looking at Talk:תרומה לויקיפדיה, which led me to Talk:Translation requests/WMF/Fundraising pages/תרומה לויקיפדיה, which led me to click on recent changes for kicks, which later led me to the election page. By the time I got a chance to read it (later in the day), I suddenly realized time was running short and I barely made it (and had to skip reviewing and !voting on a few candidates to do so). I did not realize it was the tipping !vote. Sorry I didn't have time to comment — it was mostly about your approach to the "anal sex" trolling; it's unlikely you could have persuaded me that, at the very least, you needed more time. There were only ~25 oppose !votes, so I think it's fine to querry all of these at once (but you have a year). El_C 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-Admins, ex-admins in IRC

Why are they allowed? Does that mean that anyone can join? Can I join? If not, why, and why are admins who gave up their bits an inch before the community stripped them of it (Martin, Sidaway) allowed to retain access? UsagiYoTruthBo 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

#wikipedia is open for all, including non-Wikipedia users. The other channels, it is the person who hosts the channel decides who is in or out. But, most of us (including myself) hang out in #wikipedia and the other channels, so if you need to reach us, you can. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ex-admins appear, as far as I can tell, to be allowed because nobody with channel operator access (which is not everyone) decided to remove their access after they requested desysopping. Non-admins appear, again as far as I can tell, to be allowed because one or more admins (or ex-admins) with channel operator access decided to grant them access. I don't know whether you would be granted access, as I can in no way speak for those that have the power to do so. I could try to gauge your possibility of being granted access based on your contribution record, but as this is your only edit with this account, it would seem very likely that you are an established contributor under a different name – possibly even an administrator. So I cannot even do that – Gurch 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on closer inspection, you appear to have been indefinitely blocked. So I would estimate your chance of being granted access to the channel as zero – Gurch 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Giano II blocked (duplicate note)

Just for the record, as a follow-up to a note I posted in another thread, Giano has been blocked by Centrx for three hours for spamming IRC logs. See here. Carcharoth 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More information please. I am surprised to see misbehaviour - according to the rules of an unofficial non-wikipedia virtual drinking hole (however misleadingly named) used to justify action on wikipedia? If all he has done is break their rules, then they should take whatever action they think is appropriate in thier forum, not in ours. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is called Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Large public "I'M LEAVING AND I HATE YOU ALL" type goodbyes are WP:POINT violations in and of themselves. --tjstrf talk 09:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Giano admits it: "I thought I'd go out with a bang :-)" [6] --tjstrf talk 09:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The "bang" is annoying the people he calls IRC fairies who say amazingly nasty things on IRC and then say, on Wikipedia, "Prove I ever said it, and, if you do, I'll block you!" He called the bluff. That's a bang. He was "leaving anyway" because of the moronia of the "Giano on civility parole," which was instigated by the "owner" (I think he indicated that about himself) of the en.admins IRC channel and signed by him and two others who are very protective of en.admins. In other words, it is painfully clear that this is not a "screw you I'm gone" as much as an ongoing argument about en.admins, where three or four non-administrators spend vast amounts of time and even have ops, and the proponents of those people and that channel would rather use their administrative powers against Giano, who is not an admin, than ever, ever, ever debate the issue on Wikipedia. Using that as a rationale for blocking is just more evidence, not any part of any solution. Geogre 14:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"The 'bang' is annoying the people he calls IRC fairies..."

I rest my case. --tjstrf talk 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "IRC fairy" (like WikiFairy) a self-chosen term (even insisted upon) [7] [8] [9]? Why blame Giano? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 14:38, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Giano has problems with civility, for which a potential remedy has been proposed. But the block log doesn't mention civility, it describes IRC log spamming. Now that is a rule of the IRC channel, so I highly recommend they block from their channel whoever it was that leaked, if they can work out who it was. But our rules are not their rules and their rules are not our rules. If some of the big kids have a rule that what happens behind the shelter sheds stays behind the shelter sheds, that's their business but it doesn't bind the rest of us, and it doesn't give them permission to take on-wiki action however angry they are. It has been claimed that 'privacy' has some legal protection. (Does that constitute a legal threat? I don't really know and I care less.) I am not a lawyer, but a quick check of a law book seems to make clear that information is confidential only if there is a contract between all concerned parties in place, and if the information is genuinely confidental and if steps have been taken to keep it so. None of those conditions appears to apply here, at least, not as regards Giano. (This may well be different in your juristiction, please consult a real lawyer if you need to.) I don't have all the facts and I could be wrong but it appears on the surface that Giano has been blocked for breaking a rule that we don't have. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The block is for mass-messaging, apparently in an attempt at a disruptive good-bye, and would be warranted whatever the content of the message. If a user states "I'm through here anyway, but lets have some fun" and then proceeds to post something eleven times despite being told to stop and with no indication that he would stop, the appropriate immediate response is to block the user until such time as he, being reasonable, stops, or until some other decision is made regarding the matter. That the content of the message was an "IRC log" is important only in that the user specifically intended the message to be disruptive. It was not a mass message about multi-licensing contributions or an RfA thanks; it was not a naive user vote canvassing or inserting borderline external links; it was not a malfunctioning script or someone who hastily or accidentally did not see the message about stopping; it was not a chocolate-chip cookie recipe or a Christmas card with a fair use image. There are other reasons why posting what was supposedly the verbatim text of a private conversation is probably wrong, but the solution to a dispute over those reasons is not to then engage in the disputed activity to the extreme, while edit warring and spamming. As far as I can tell, he would have continued to repeatedly post this message, across several pages and on the same pages over again, and he was doing it to be disruptive. —Centrx→talk • 12:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Ignoring posts to his own talk page, I count about 5, not 11, though I agree he probably would have continued. So, hardly a mass message, and they weren't distributed at random. But yes, disruptive, or at least intended to be so. I trust you'll forgive me for assuming you blocked him because of the content? You probably should have dropped a note here once you'd made the block. But otherwise, yes, good call.

OK. For better or worse, the cat's out of the stable door. Does anyone claim the logs, however they've come into our possession, are not a true and accurate representation of things that have been said? And either way, does it matter? #admins is not official. The logs don't seem to contain any admision to have commited any deadly sins on wiki. Only a claim to the ability to do so, but that's hardly the same thing. Absent evidence of foul play on wiki, does anything else need to be done? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think the logs are genuine, you might want to comment here. Carcharoth 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Death threat by 69.252.158.32 (talk • contribs)

69.252.158.32 (talk • contribs) has issued a death threat. I have indefinitely blocked the user and blocked account creation. I've never handled a death threat before. Could another admin review this? Are blocks like this usually indefinite? If not, how long should it be? Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 02:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that appears to be a dynamic IP controlled by Comcast Cable. An indefinite block is likely going to hamper other users in the future, once the current user is assigned a different IP address and someone else is assigned their old one. I'd consider scaling the block back to maybe 1-2 months? I'm not sure whether any further action has been taken in past similar incidents, such as contacting the ISP or law enforcement. —bbatsell ¿? 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good block; it looks like it may be a dynamic IP, however, in which case there would be little practical difference between 24 hours and indef (which is why we try to avoid indeffing IPs, generally). Might be worth shortening it, with a clear understanding that continued such behavior would lead to an "on-sight" block. WHOIS suggests the IP range in question is 69.240.0.0/12 -- very wide range, so sprotection might be a better option, if they're persistent. Luna Santin 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and maybe I'm incorrect, but I gathered IPs could not be indefinitely blocked. Am I wrong? Yuser31415 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We generally don't, that's correct, but there's no technical limitation preventing it at this time. (Open proxies are frequently indeffed as IPs, is about the only example of proper use). Luna Santin 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And with open proxies, the same situation applies. Most of them are not permanently open proxies, and some of them are hacked machines on relatively dynamic IPs. —Centrx→talk • 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's Comcast, you won't have to worry much about the IP changing. As a former Comcast customer, I once had an IP for a year and a half (if not a little more), and if not for the fact that Comcast pulled out of my area, I'd almost certainly still have that IP. jgp ^T_C 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough. It looked like the IP only had edits for today and back in... May, I think it was. I still prefer "awhile" to "indefinite," with IPs. 24 hours, a week, or some such. If they're not gone by then, it's easy enough to re-block. Luna Santin 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you may have the IP for that long, but if you were to wilfully reset your modem, you would be assigned a new IP. That is, the banned user can, relatively at will, get a new IP. Even supposing that he did not do that, the unlikely 1.5 years is not the same as indefinite and, even if he did not get a new ISP 3 months from now, he will be dynamically assigned a new IP sooner or later. —Centrx→talk • 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from an experienced Comcast usr: Comcast assigns IP addresses to cable modems based on the MAC address of the outward-facing port (Router/Ethernet card). I've reset my modem (And had it force-reset by Comcast) well over 10 times and still have 68.39.174.238. Depending on the user behind this IP, they may have ditched it immediately or they may still be on it. 68.39.174.238 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not block IPs indefinitely. Before doing any sort of long-term block on an IP, you should whois the IP to see what sort of Internet service it has, or at the very least look at the contribs to see how long there have been problems from this IP. A person may be banned indefinitely, but blocking an IP indefinitely does not ban the person indefinitely; it does prevent perfectly innocent people from editing and creates a burden on another admin to investigate and unblock it. —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support a one week block instead, followed by personal attack parole. Yuser31415 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

nodding in agreement with Yuser --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your comments and for taking care of this. One minor question: My understanding was that "indefinite" blocks were meant for two situations, the first being when there is no plan to ever unblock, and the second being when an admin has not determined how long it should be. Since I did not know how long it should be, I made it indefinite and then asked for discussion here. Am I misunderstanding this? --Samuel Wantman 06:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. —Centrx→talk • 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has apparently surfaced as Kriminal99 (talk • contribs). I don't know if it's worth the trouble of going though a checkuser request to verify this, but the topical interest and level of vitriol is identical. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He's claiming to be his brother/roommate, but I'm not buying it. I blocked Kriminal99 for a week for block evasion and continued threats (see for example [10]). We do not need to put up with this kind of abusive behavior. Antandrus (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I received two e-mails from him after the block. In the first, he denies being the same person, which I believe is a lie, based on stylistic similarity and completely identical behavior and interests, and then he goes on to wiki-lawyer about his behavior not really constituting making a threat and so forth, which we've heard before on the various talk pages. In the second mail he admits to making personal attacks, although he says he was previously unaware of the policy, and he promises to respect the block, and not make future personal attacks.

If anyone would like to argue for an unblock, or make a suggestion to him as to how he could proceed, feel free to comment either here or on his talk page(s). I'm not going to do it until he explicitly retracts his threats and quits the "it's not really a threat" rhetoric. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I didn't do it myself only because I was currently engaged in a content conversation with him. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK... I posted on his talk page [11]. Maybe that's a reasonable way forward. Antandrus (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to unblock him. We are talking about a very disturbed individual who views people disagreeing with him as "use of force" that must be stopped "by any means necessary" and has already demonstrated by both committing the action and writing in defense of it afterwards that yes, he does include 'making people fear for their lives' as a morally acceptable means. Why on Earth would we allow such a person back on Wikipedia? I hope no one's under the impression that he could not find equally vicious means to conduct the persecution he already announced as being justifiable "by any means necessary". If anyone is, I'd like to point out that this is also the user who previously posted as 69.180.7.137 (talk · contribs) and under that IP his antics not only include a similar pattern of personal attacks but also altering another contributor's comments and then falsely accusing them of having altered his comments. The decision is of course not up to me, despite me being the one targeted, but I must say I don't see why we would be looking for terms upon which we can allow this user to return to Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... I wasn't aware of the full history here. I'm not unblocking this person. We can get along fine without this kind of editor. Antandrus (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should be zero tolerance for anything like this. I'd like to see this user banned. I wish there was a way to keep the anon blocked as well. --Samuel Wantman 02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barrett Vs Rosenthal: California Supreme Court Decision

Thanks to Wizardary Dragon for bringing neutrality to the discussions about me. I can assure you I do apologize for any mistakes I made in the past and I definitely intend to be a better Wikicitizen in the future and move forward from here. There are some issues with the article Barrett Vs Rosenthal {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal] that I would really like help on. I would like people to really understand how this ruling in my favor, protected ISP's, blog owners, and users who post things written by other people. Wikipedia can be mightily protected from nuisance lawsuits as they host the words of others. I have not been able to keep the final words in the article. I'm going to re-open that topic on that page. I hope I have some support. The plaintiffs in this case have been spreading information about this case that is clearly unfactual. This paragraph found on page 39, are the final words of the 41 pages. From the Supreme Court decision, I quote: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." Unlike those who wish this removed, I feel there was definitely a purpose for Judge Moreno to have added this. All I want as an editor, is the verifiable quote from the Supreme Court of California quote [12]. I would also very much appreciate being able to edit my own user page and have my links restored where they have been systematically removed. There are some excellent articles on this case: [13] [Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet] and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. I'll gladly rewrite my page about my Wiki experiences. I send healing energies and thanks tonite from the jungles. Ilena 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• And this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with using Wikipedia for self-promotion and furthering your vendetta against Barrett, right? Only your past history does rather invite scepticism here. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am attempting to get the verifiable facts from this Landmark Supreme Court Case properly on Wikipedia and request help. Barrett's vendetta (6 years of SLAPP suit against me] was decided in three California decisions, yet the facts are not being allowed to remain unedited on the page. Thank you.Ilena 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I'd rather rely on the judgement of neutral third parties as to the importance of the case and what constitutes fact here. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This does look like a conflict of interests concern. I haven't actually looked into this case, so I can't comment on the specific details unfortunately. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, I think the best course of action is to fully address the issue of learning wikipedia's "ropes" so to speak before you try to make broad, sweeping changes anywhere. I can look into any links you provide, as I have said on my page. However realize that change rarely happens instantaneously but rather tends to take time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. You can see I provided 3 links .... one is the government's Supreme Court ruling [14]. These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... one from law.com. Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users etc. Best from Ilena 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the issue of neutrality is an important one. Recall it was a lack of such neutrality and calm thought that lead to the sticky situation you were in previously. I would suggest what would be best is simply to present the links and your opinion on the talk page, and let a person less involved in the case (on either side - including yours) add in what they feel is pertinent. That is why I offered to look at them, since I really have no interest in either side, except insofar as I want to diffuse this conflict. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This case is mentioned in the article on Barrett. In that article, Ilena's request for the concurring opinion's statement is included in the description of the case. There, is is notable. It was removed from the article on the case itself, because the notability there is somewhat different. Barrett v. Rosenthal is notable for the precedent it set regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (a federal statute). The case is rightfully called a 'landmark' case that may end up in the US Supreme Court. However, the case is not notable for dicta in the concurring opinion. I understand Ilena's wish for rebuttal there, but the case is properly described. If it would make her feel better, however, I see no problem with including that statement. It is a correct statement.Jance 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More ref desk related drama

user:Light current, ably assisted by user:THB, has managed to engage user:Hipocrite in a revert war at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science over a trollish question that's been deleted and re-added 4 or 5 times by now. I'm sort of in the middle of this (I've been trying to get these editors to peaceably exist in the same universe), but if someone heretofore uninvolved in this could take a look at this mess I'd appreciate it. This is related to the user:Friday situation as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

THis is hardly an engagement. Everyone is I believe acting on his own. This is a pure content dispute and has no place here.--Light current 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since it looks like there's an asinine edit war going on, I think it does make sense to bring this to administrators' attention. --Cyde Weys 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me again how the reference desk pays for itself? In drama-to-reward ratio terms, please. - brenneman 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It answers dozens of questions a day. And the drama will go down, eventually, when we straighten a few things out. I wish there were a quick way to reduce the drama, but I don't see one. -- SCZenz 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I know one sure way. Remove yourself.

--Light current 03:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it provides a gateway to Wikipedia, and an example of what Wikipedia is about; sometimes it could set a better example, of course, but like everything here it's a work in progress. -- SCZenz 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Bah. I suppose it's observational bias: I never noticed when it was bubbling along fine, but the last (weeks? months?) it has been a hotbed of dispute so I do notice. I've just got my grumpy pants on, that's all. - brenneman 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm so glad to see you back, Mr. Grumpy Pants Aaron. ;) --

nae'blis 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt pay for itself . It has no declared purpose. It is completely useless. Its only here cos Larry sanger suggested it. Why not exterminate it. It would save everyone a great deal of trouble and heartache.--Light current 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RD was fine until Friday and his ilk decided it wasn't. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No it was OK till Rick Block opened the can of worms. I did warn him. 8-(--Light current 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm inclined to agree. What part of 'building a free encyclopedia' does answering user questions in real time help build? It seems to draw attention away from writing articles, is a vector for trollish and unanswerable questions, and sometimes a way to push POV which would never be acceptable in articles. -- nae'blis 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Aaron and Nae'blis should pay a penalty for opining here, maybe they should have to get involved in the discussion? Really, "what the hell is the ref desk good for anyway?" is a great question—and i think there are some pretty good answers—the more editors asking the better.EricR 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm watching. I just don't have anything productive to add there; RD isn't my forte, and I only recently became aware of the scope of it (in terms of edits and importance to readers). It was about the time of the /Strict experiment, for reference. -- nae'blis 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In case it is of use to anyone, here is a squence of diffs that reflects my efforts to chronicle the edit war: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] ([25]), [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Note that Friday and I are involved in removing the question as well as the users Rick named. Note also the edit in perenthesis, which is an essentially uninvolved user apologizing for reverting Friday because he wasn't aware of discussions on the talk page. From my perspective, this question was worth removing, and remained so because the users who were re-adding it were not addressing (or deliberately misinterpreting) the discussion on the talk page about why it should be removed. Do with the information what you will; my goal in adding to this post is really just to save time. -- SCZenz 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that, personally, I wouldn't take any action on this at all at this time. We're hashing out through the wiki process, and had a bit of a flare-up is all—it's something that happens on pages (even policy!) from time to time, and as far as I can see nobody violated the three-revert rule. I don't see how administrative intervention will particularly improve the situation at the moment, although any suggestions anyone has on the ref desk talk page about how to handle things better in the future might very well be useful. -- SCZenz 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point. Light current has a history of playing silly buggers at the ref desk, and appears to be deliberately setting out to troll and antagonise, so I'd say a strong warning was in order. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you bloody well mind not calling me a silly bugger Guy? I may not have the highest opinion of you but I dont call you a complete asshole in public do I?--Light current 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I should hope you would not, as it would be a personal attack. Whereas Guy didn't call you a silly bugger. He said you have a history of playing silly buggers which is an idiomatic reference to the exact kind of procedural and linguistic manoeuvring that you have displayed in questioning him. It is this sort of retort that is so trying. Rockpocket 00:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So I could say any one was acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole and get away with it? How frigging pathetic this wordplay is. We all know things like this are meant as personal insults.--Light current 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because acting like a complete and utter shitty asshole is not an idiom, playing silly buggers is. Your protest is equivalent to complaining someone is actually calling you a "pot" when if they were to suggest you behaviour was like the pot calling the kettle black. Rockpocket 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So is there a place where all the allowable insults are stored?--Light current 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is this sort of retort that is so trying. WTF do you mean by this?--Light current 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you are clearly a smart, eloquent individual and you are clearly not unfamiliar with British English, this led me to infer that you knew exactly what that phrase means, but used the opportunity to refute his analysis of your behaviour with an insinuated personal attack. (coincidently, this is exactly the same thing other editors inferred of you in the example I provided below) Of course, perhaps I'm overestimating your linguistic skills, in which case I apologise for failing to WP:AGF. But at least now you know now how to distinguish between and idiom and an insult and thus will not fall into the same trap again. So everyone's a winner, right? Rockpocket 02:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have heard the term. I still find it offensive to be referred to by that idiom. as it implies that I am a silly bugger doesnt it?--Light current 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Light_current#On_offense. "People will always step on your toes (inadvertently). People always step on mine (probably inadvertently). The solution is to get some emotional steel toecap boots!" "Ignore offensive posts. Its the Wiki way yes. I know it can be very hard somtimes to do it but we must try. My offense after all may be your right to say something you believe. 8-)--Light current 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)"

He's correctly using British idiom and, frankly, he's accurately describing your behaviour. Put on your 'emotional steel toecap boots' and listen to what people are saying to you, rather than playing silly word games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

THe bit you quoted is for unintentional (inadvertent) offence that may be caused by general posting, not intentional targeted offence like this. Im sure you can see the difference here.--Light current 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no "targeted offence". You clearly don't understand the meaning of the phrase. An idiom's "meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions and the arrangement of its parts, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through conventional use." You are inferring a literal meaning, not the figurative meaning. Therefore it implies nothing other than that you were behaving in an "annoying way" (something, as TenOfAllTrades notes, appears to be perfectly accurate). Have you considered perhaps instead of obtusely questioning every perceived criticism, instead of deconstructing the minutiae of every argument in an attempt to avoid accepting the glaringly obvious point, actually thinking about why so many experienced Wikipedians express the same concerns about your behaviour? Please, just think about it. Rockpocket 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately previous experience tells me that strong warnings are simply treated as fodder for Light current to make a WP:POINT. The concept of trying the patience of the community appears lost on him (see here for a perfect example). As an aside, my opinion as a occasional RD contributor, is that the biggest problem facing the subproject is the self appointed "RD regulars" that spend their Wikitime there almost exclusively. RD works when editors with a level of specialist knowledge contribute to questions that they have knowledge of. It doesn't work when the certain individuals feel the need to answer every question asked, then when there is nothing current being asked, to ask their own irreverent questions, then - when they are bored of that - by arguing over unneeded policy. If it was simply used for the purpose it was designed, instead of treated like a social forum, it could get back to relative normalcy. How we would enforce that, I have no idea, however. Rant over. Rockpocket 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So Im going to be the scapegoat again? Well that is a big surprise (I dont think) 8-((

The trouble with scape goats is that one is never enough. When the problems and misfortunes continue, the elders say we they must find another goat to placate the Heavenly one. Then another is scarificed. Unfortunately the problems still appear. What to do? Ah yes, lets find another scape goat. Surely he will rid us of all the evil editors and crap posts!. And so it goes on. Eventually only the tribe elders are left doing all? the work and praying:

"Oh Lord Where have we gone wrong? We have sacrificed many, many goats in your Name and yet we are still in the shit with our only remaining editor writing whatever he wants to. How can we get them to write only what we want?"

The Lord replied: "Its going to be difficult to get anything written now aint it Dumkopfs? cos you've killed off all the good writers ". And the Lord smiled a knowing smile on the tribe leaders.

--Light current 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Light current <> the Ref Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I have had a distiguished carreer of over 25000 edits before even happening across the Rds. People ought to take a look at some of 'em 8-)--Light current 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but his behavior contributes to the problems there, and users who stand on the principle of "free speech" above all make it more difficult to keep his behavior from hurting the desk. -- SCZenz 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest sorting out a procedure for removing contentious questions (or even contentious answers) that you can agree on. A good starting point would be that reverting the removal of a question is NOT the right thing to do (that way lies edit warring). Reverting a removal must be discussed first. The reference desk won't collapse if a removed question is not replaced straightaway, and it won't collapse if one poster of a question finds that the question has been removed (if the poster is an established user, make it a requirement to post a note to the user's talk page inviting them to participate in the debate). Then follow a procedure to decide whether the question should be put back, and in what form (maybe modifying the question would help). At the end of the procedure, restore the question/answer or leave it removed. I'll copy this to the ref desk talk page to see if they can agree on using a system like this. Carcharoth 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost right, the start of an edit war is the first unilateral (non-consensus) deletion. The proper procedure is to discuss it first with the author, and then, if the author refuses to remove it and further action is warranted, bring it up at the Ref Desk talk page. If a consensus to delete is reached there, then the post can be removed. StuRat 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just, you know, remove the clearly inappropriate questions without having to go through all of that rigmarole, thus saving everyone's time. Admins are already trusted to use their judgment and delete articles; clearing questions off the reference desk is nothing, and is well within our capability to handle without so much unnecessary process. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what admins have done in the past, and most would continue to do, irrespective of the "proper process" that is now being mooted. The problem lies with when certain editors object to certain other editors removing certain questions. In other words, I believe the crux of the problem is with personality clashes, not with the general issue of removing inappropriate content. Rockpocket 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket has summed it up admirably. To repond to StuRat, I would say that if someone removes a question you think should stay, do not unilaterally revert their removal of the question. Raise the issue on the talk page. That way you would be following your own logic. As soon as you revert their removal, you are descending to the level you profess to be avoiding. If you see a question you don't like, raise it on the talk page. And anyone can use common sense and blank/remove questions, not just admins. Have a look at WP:1RR to see what I mean. The philosophy is that absolutely anyone can remove something, but no-one should restore anything without discussion. Carcharoth 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the restore of a unilateral deletion is not unilateral, because you have both the person who does the restore and the original poster being of the opinion that the material should remain, against the single opinion of the person who first deleted the question. To break it down:

Question is posted: 100% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the post

Question is deleted: 50% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the deletion

Question is restored: 67% of people whose opinions we know are in favor of the restore

StuRat 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And the whole of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary should be mandatory bedtime reading for those perpetuating this ref desk battle. Carcharoth 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and WP:BLP problems

East Stirlingshire F.C. is having problems with copyrighted material being inserted. I reverted to the last clean version and also removed unsourced negative information per WP:BLP [33], and also left a copyvio notice on the editor's talk page [34]. The editor has ignored the message I left, and re-inserted the copyrighted information and the WP:BLP violations with no edit summary [35]. I've removed all the offending information [36], but I'm not really sure what to do next. One Night In Hackney 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The offending material is taken from [37] and subpages, forgot to include that. One Night In Hackney 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor seems to have relented for how. I've left a warning on their talkpage that they will be blocked if this continues. I'll keep an eye on the sitiuation and will issue a short block if he or she doesn't get the message. Rockpocket 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found that Alex Ferguson had copyrighted material from the same source as above. I have removed it but it may be worth checking any other East Stirling related articles. Catchpole 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone review my indef block of User:Vlh?

Hey folks. I blocked User:Vlh for ten days for massive edit-warring and violations of WP:OR, and when he responded with this nastygram on his talk page, I indef-blocked him. His talk page is now protected, as he kept blanking it and posting attacks on admins (none against me personally). Now he's firing off emails to me, demanding that I unblock him, which I'm not terribly inclined to do, both because of his behavior and because he shows no indication that he's going to follow WP:OR in the future. Can someone review my block of him and reduce it if you feel it's necessary? Thanks... | Mr. Darcy talk 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• On review I endorse your actions. The editor clearly had scant regard for both WP:OR and WP:NPA. His contribution history shows no sign of efforts to improve. Rockpocket 23:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block until he learns what being a member of a community of editors is all about. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse block and endorse protecting talk-page. (Talk-page should probably be unprotected in a few days, though.) Bucketsofg 00:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Talk page should only be unprotected once Vlh stops sending me and MrDarcy nasty emails. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Non sysop endorsement of block • We should not allow editors who are only creating a negative atmosphere in the project to continue to do so when they have been given plenty of warning and chance to reform. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Non sysop endorsement of block - that message does it all, without even looking at everything else he's done. (He forgets that if admins were the elitest whateveritwas, then their blocks would always be OK.) And as an aside to the large number of emails you are recieving, have the developers implemented a feature that optionally disables email from blocked or anon IPs? Yuser31415 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorsed. As noted by Yuser, if there was any doubt left one only has too read his last messages.--Aldux 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Zoe, emails to me have stopped; if they've stopped to you as well, we might unprotect the talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, if you want. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby

Would someone look at SoLongBaby (talk · contribs), please? In my opinion, it is a "disruptive 'throwaway' account used only for a few edits", the second situation of WP:CHECK). Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the only thing the editor is concerned with is removing an image and some related text from the article over and over for almost 2 months now. I see a warning has been placed on his usertalk.--MONGO 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been at a loss about what to do with this situation. Ginkgo100 recommended a revert-and-ignore approach [38]. On the positive side, SoLongBaby has got me to do some additional editing to the article. --Ronz 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I, though I'm not an admin, would suggest a block, maybe one week in length. I hope that's realistic. Yuser31415 07:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him why he wants that specific image and text removed? Proto::► 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

His edit summaries [39] indicated that he thinks it's spam. Dina 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A week's block seems excessive to me, since I see no evidence that these are bad faith edits. I could protect the page for a while, if it persists. I think the goal here is either to make him understand and failing that, to make him give up. Dina 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Dina. Looks like a misguided user rather than an out-and-out vandal. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(not admin) I would probably agree too. For the time being, he or she appears to have stopped. I would suggest waiting to see if the image or text is removed again, and if so leave a firm message on his or her talk page telling them to stop, and if they do it again, blocking for 24hr. Any better? Yuser31415 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

S/he did it again, and I reverted, placing a note on his/her talk page asking directly why s/he persists. I hate to say it, but if it happens again today, a 24h block might be in order, just to get his/her attention. I don't like it, but the non-responses to Ronz don't make me optimistic that I'll get a response to my note. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a 24hr block under the circumstances you describe. Dina 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, would protecting the page for a week not solve the problem better? If the user is intent on disrupting, they'll move to another page and be blocked. If not, they'll give up. Dina 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the user is a well-meaning editor that doesn't know English very well? It would be a pity to block if it was his/her intention to make good faith edits. Yuser31415 19:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter in my mind. The user is constantly removing good material, without explaining their edits on the article's talk page (where their edits are opposed by several editors), and without responding to questions on their own talk page. If the reason is because they don't know English well enough to respond or do anything other than remove content, then I think we would all be better served by the user editing the localized version of Wikipedia in their native tongue. As it stands now, they are disrupting the English Wikipedia; whether their edits are in good faith or in bad faith is for the most part irrelevant. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Under which circumstances, we should probably protect the page for a short time, or block the user for a very minor amount of time as a get-attention block, maybe from 12h to 24h depending on the admins' feelings on this. Cheers! Yuser31415 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has again performed the same edit with the same edit summary on Dental floss. I have issued a "final warning" (for lack of a better term) to the user on their talk page. —bbatsell ¿? 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so this editor is getting to the point of being a WikiTroll (and that's saying something, coming from me). I would suggest a 24h block without waiting for the user to violate their so called "final warning". Yuser31415 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Page protected to cool down the disruptive edit war. I have no opinion on any blocks as of now. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. A few comments: I think part of the problem is that SoLongBaby's command of English may be poor, judging by his use of the word stub in his edit summaries and on the talk page (I can't figure out what he means by "stub" at all). I do think he understands much of wiki policy since he's avoided a sockpuppetry situation and actively avoids 3RR problems. --Ronz 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

The talkpage of the now nonexistant article Encyclopedia Dramatica has been recreated even though it recently was found in the deletion review that it was to be kept deleted...[40]. One administrator of this website has posted comments there and surely must, based on his comments, know that the article was deleted and the deletion review upheld that deletion.--MONGO 11:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a good-faith effort to determine whether the subject is (or, since its most recent deletion, has become) notable, and therefore deserving of an article. As long as it remains such, then there's no reason the talk page can't continue to exist. —Psychonaut 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This page was deleted in the regular course of clearing old protected-deleted pages. Currently, there appears to be a good-faith effort to justify having an article on the topic, though it does not look like it will be successful. Note that deletion review was about the previous deletion of the talk page. It is not a decision to forever forbid the talk page there, and the vast majority of protected-deleted pages do not have protected talk pages. If there are problems on the talk page, they will be removed or the talk page will be deleted and re-protected, but current good-faith commentary about why an article is not or should be included, should not be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand both rationales, however, it has been well less than two months since the deletion review was closed as keep deleted. Seems odd to have any page recreated less than two months after it was DRVed and closed as a keep deleted, tis all.--MONGO 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It does seem like we are having a good faith discussion on the talk page. I'm just curious why there would ever be a need to delete and protect a talk page? I mean, delete is one thing, but to delete and protect a talk page? Just seems weird. Smeelgova 13:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

There were a few personal attacks on the talkpage and it looked like, with precedent in mind, that the best thing to do was to eliminate the forum in which further harassment would originate from.--MONGO 13:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, there aren't any personal attacks going on at the moment, and there won't be from me at least. But at any rate, doesn't just deleting the talk page, and thus the personal attacks, fix that problem? Why the need to delete and protect? Smeelgova 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Technically, the talk page to a non-existent article is not the place to discuss whether there should be a page or not. The proper venue is an RFC. Would someone kindly invite the good faith folks there to create an RFC, and then the talk page can simply redirect (yeah, I know...namespace redirects are an abomination before the Lord) to the RFC. Geogre 14:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted and protected the talk page yet again - even though the only thing that was going on at the moment was a good-faith discussion about the notability of certain sourced citations. Oh well. It will be interesting to see how this all progresses in the future. Smeelgova 14:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The re-creation of articles is, as Template:Deletedpage says, discussed on the talk page and/or Wikipedia:Deletion review. The talk page is the place to bring up new sources, etc., and re-creation at least of anything so controversial as this would be on Deletion review. I don't see what the use of creating an RFC and then redirecting the talk page to it would be; has that ever been done before? —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the "one administrator of this website" to whom MONGO alludes above. I certainly knew that the page had been deleted and salted, saw that it was recreated, and since it wasn't being used for trolling or harassment, simply responded to the good-faith comments I saw there, without worrying about why the page was unlocked again.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been deleted two weeks ago - that was a good call. As for protecting it again, I'm not particularly disagreeing with that, but I would suggest that it could be kept in a better state than with a {{tl}deletedpage}} or {{deletedtalkpage}} template on it. That page ought to have some unambiguous statement that the page cannot be created until such time that the topic is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. I think that would be the best way to prevent repeated re-awakenings of the "why is this page deleted?" question. Maybe I'll hack up a custom template and see whether people like it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

An explanation wouldn't hurt, I've done that. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. —Centrx→talk • 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If there was good-faith discussion going on, can someone please undelete, move the discussion, and then redelete the page (which will at that point be a redirect), and inform those involved in the discussion where to carry on their discussion. If there is good-faith discussion going on, it doesn't matter where it is taking place, deleting it is just rude. It is equivalent to someone coming along and ripping up a piece of paper that you were writing a letter on, or pulling the plug as you are writing an e-mail. Carcharoth 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Resalted, please see deletion review if you have new evidence to reverse the last time they endorsed this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, is New Year's Eve "Coddle The Non-notable Harrassing Trolls Day"? If there's evidence to support recreation, which I sincerely doubt, take it to DRV. Otherwise, we're not spending any more effort on these people, including the effort needed to watch over a troll magnet like this talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I care overmuch, but what exactly was the problem with the text I put on the Talk page in place of {{deletedtalkpage}}? Are we calling GTBacchus a troll? I hope not. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect I've been called worse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the page by ED members and others to whine, complain, and generally troll, and without any other use for the page there's no point in us trying to moderate it. Why are we even thinking about it? There are dozens of salted pages which no-one wrings their hands over. Why are we bending over backwards trying to avoid the impression of vindictiveness because we're deleting pages that failed to meet policy, just because the subject was the cause of massive disruption and the premature exit of some of our best editors? Anyway, this is not deletion review, discussion about undeleting a page deleted per policy and previously endorsed belongs there. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam Blanning, I would suggest that the point is harm reduction. There are dozens of salted pages that don't periodically re-erupt into questions about "why is this deleted?" This one does re-erupt, and the point of the explanatory text JzG wrote is to prevent further re-eruptions. If the deletion didn't come across to many as vindictive, we wouldn't have to take steps to demonstrate that it was actually deleted for boring policy reasons. Our job is to prevent drama, and a policy-based explanation, caked in salt, does that better than a simple {{deletedtalkpage}} template. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what JzG meant is that you actually deleted an already salted page and salted it again. Nandesuka deleted and salted the page a day before you did, JzG then changed the {{deletedpage}} to an (IMHO) useful explanation of why the page was salted. This was then deleted and salted once more, probably because you didn't realize that it was already a salted page. --Conti|✉ 17:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the helpful explanation. In the future, I hope that Sam actually bothers to examine the content of a page instead of blindly deleting it and scolding those who complain. —David Levy 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Giano for stated intent to disrupt

See [41], [42]. I realise he's sincerely upset, and this is certain to be controversial, but when someone with admin powers states directly they're going to disrupt the wiki to "go out with a bang" and "I'm through here anyway, but lets have some fun", it's a block for the protection of the wiki. I can't recall a case of quietly acquiescing to stated intent to disrupt from any editor in the three years I've been here. (Though there are probably examples, please feel free to remind me.)

I've marked the block "pending AC decision" and let the AC know as well - David Gerard 14:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the block, Giano does not have admin powers of his own. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that wrong, sorry. The point stands - David Gerard 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. El_C 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

El C, your comments are verging on disruptive. Please refrain. Remember that Everyking, who was an admin, was eventually banned from posting to Admin pages for repeated bad faith comments on admin processes. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, Zoe. Please do let me know if you if you wish for me to address any particulars. Best wishes, El_C 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't matter if you're right. What was the context? What is a "bang?" Given that he's just a regular editor, and given that he had already done the bang (posting a log, which would get him banned from IRC), he was speaking of his current action, not future actions. It's not a hard job reading his statements. Also, posting the logs is a violation of Freenode's rules, not ours. The bit about logging and posting logs is not on Wikipedia: it's on IRC. Therefore, Giano was disrupting Freenode and saying that he might as well provoke a storm with his present act. Geogre 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The "bang" in question is that mentioned in Giano's reply to me on his own talk page:

No I'm not coming back, I#ll be permabanned by the clique for this, so I thought I'd go out with a bang :-) I've loads more but these just suited the moment, James forrester pretending he did not know why people thought he controlled IRC, see his comment on the arbitration case talk. Oh Dear, they seem to have gone again. Never mind most people have seen them now Giano 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

– Gurch 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, there were no objections when Kelly Martin copied the same comment on the talk pages of ~150 users last week. El_C 14:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about him being an admin, I don't think I'm wrong about stated intent to disrupt. You know that's an instant block for the wiki's sake. Wik was a fantastic contributor and also felt utterly justified when he unleashed our first-ever vandalbot. I'm just wondering how the hell to get him back to sane writing after this. Even GFDL writing somewhere else. Or something. Fundamentally, the whole thing is a massive clusterfuck of the good guys versus the good guys (I include Giano there) - David Gerard 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Much like the Arbitration Committee's latest actions, I do not feel you were being even-handed here, and, as such, you run the risk of coming across as favouring one side in the dispute over the other. El_C 14:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edits and knew there was a clusterfuck and log-posting going on and went "wtf". As noted below I've been reassured he won't vandalise, and I certainly hope he won't log post, and someone's undone the block in any case - David Gerard 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm adamantly staying uninvolved in this whole mess, but just for the sake of clarification, the rule against publishing logs is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, not a freenode policy. Freenode's channel guidelines suggest some principles to follow in regards to publishing or not publishing logs, but there's no network policy explicitly permitting or forbidding it; it's up to each channel's contacts. Jdforrester (James_F on freenode), the contact for Wikimedia Foundation channels, established the policy. --Slowking Man 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He was saying that he had more logs, and people could contact him for more. It appears that Jdforrester is the owner of the channel, sort of, which makes his authorship and endorsing of the "Giano on civility parole" even more clearly a case for recusal. I also don't think it's disrupting Wikipedia. It's disrupting IRC usage and annoying its users and continuing this conversation, but what really has this conversation going is more blocking of Giano. What do you folks think would have happened if you had ignored him? What would have happened if you had said, "Dude, that's not helping. Let's talk it through?" What would have happened if people had approached him with discussion rather than templates, blocks, templates, blocks, patronizing, templates, blocks, and paroles? A guy is here for 3 years. In that time, his behavior isn't substantially different from year to year, but suddenly he must be blocked. What happened with that "suddenly" is up to each to determine. Geogre 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Publishing IRC logs to "prove" a cabal conspiracy of some sort is blatantly disruptive to the editing community and thus damages the encyclopedia. Its only effect is to cause drama and ill feeling. EVEN IF HE'S RIGHT. - David Gerard 14:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it you have formed an opinion, even. El_C 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC) El_C 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm forming the opinion that banning everyone involved for a month would be an excellent idea to let the rest of us get on with writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a list of who is "everyone involved," or is it also in the making? El_C 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Giano promised not to do anything destructive, nor to spam I do not see any reasons to keep this editor blocked. I took my liberty to unblock him Alex Bakharev 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see how publishing short logs having no personal information disrupts the work of Wikipedia. On the other hand, ill feeling of an excellent contributor who has somehow founded suspicion about a cabal acting against him certainly disrupt Wiki much stronger than any of his incivility can. Alex Bakharev 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I locked the talk page, I'll now go unlock it. But really, "disruption" includes log spamming. I realise that Giano feels this is the only way for him to get any justice. But it's not going to work and is the fast train to a great big horrible ban this big. Really really. This should be INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO THE MOST CASUAL OBSERVER - David Gerard 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No shortage of drama around these parts. Sorry, DRAMA. El_C 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else unlocked it. I have also been reassured by people whose judgement I trust that Giano would not vandalise, and I must apologise for the comparison to Wik above - Wik is a bit of a Hitler example in good-user-gone-sour discussions - David Gerard 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from Hitler comparisons, I find these offensive. El_C 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! The annual Giano drama! I thought we'd forgotten :o) Guy (Help!) 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant of course Stalin Hussein - David Gerard 15:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is not your friend. El_C 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Hitler comparison, it is a comparison to ad extremum Hitler comparisons, which exactly relevant to Godwin's Law. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Best not to invoke the name Hitler, in any case. El_C 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

oh yes, let's give Giano a good preventive cool-down block. That worked really well last time. It wouldn't have hurt to wait until he had really done something bad, David. I guess I object to this block. dab (𒁳) 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Looks a tad too punitive for my liking. yandman 16:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dab and Yandman. All these blocks are only increasing the nature of the problem. I'm sure you had good intentions David, but it seems more like you've thrown gasoline instead of water on the fire.--Aldux 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ironically, David's suggestion of blocking all involved parties for a month is one of the more even-handed answers to this problem that I've seen. >Radiant< 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hence, my question: whose on the list? El_C 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hey, I suggested banning (not blocking) everyone involved first! :-) A full 16 hours before David's suggestion. See here. I only suggested two weeks, not a full month, but I did suggest a way to do this. A community ban on the basis that those involved are beginning to try the patience of the community. This would only succeed if the community could (a) agree on who is on this list of "those involved" and (b) no admins would unblock. That last one could be avoided if you implement this as a non-blocking ban. ie. lots of people sign up to a plea for certain people to not edit for two weeks and go on an enforced wikibreak. You could even water it down to a proposal similar to that of Doc Glasgow - just plead with those involved to stay away from each other for the next two weeks. To not post on each other's talk pages, to not run around geting upset, and so on. To just get on with being the productive members of the community we know they can be. If enough people sign up to something like that, it might get through to those involved. Carcharoth 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Or, it might backfire horribly. Not be a pessimist, but in this case, I lean toward caution over what may well end up being a populist, quick fix solution that fails to achieve appreciable and long lasting resolution, and could even result in further escalation (it certainly has a dramatic flare). But by all means, anyone is free propose any remedy they see fit. El_C 02:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hussein hangs.jpg

I protected this image for vandalism issues, but also for sourcing issues. I have asked for the source to be added, and left a notice for the uploader, but was reverted once and the uploader blanked his talk page. If a URL source is found, I'll add the URL in and lower the protection to semi. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be deleted, as it is obviously from a commercial information provider, and was never intended to be used in an article about that company. Jkelly 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the NYT, it's from Iraqi state television. I have *no* idea what effect this has on copyright (i.e., I don't know whether works produced by the Iraqi government are considered public domain, as is the case in the US; my hunch would be no, but that's just a guess). —bbatsell ¿? 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a request at WP:RFPP for the page to be unprotected. On the image's talk page, someone left an apparent fair use rationale for the image. Nishkid64 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message about the protection; my main goal in this is to get a URL of where I can find this image. The URL will be added to the image page, then, depending on the vandalism issue, the protection can either be lifted completely or knocked down to semi-protection. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm..this is tricky. I went to the English website of the news agency and they didn't have the photo. I checked the Arabic version and it gave me an 403 Forbidden error and the Kurdish version doesn't load for me. I will personally worry about the fair use of it later, I am just worried about getting the URL now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

With some help from the folks at IRC, I was pointed to [43]. I saved the image and I put it into Photoshop. I managed to use photoshop's image resize tool to make the image from the URL match to what we have on Wikipedia exactly. Because of this, I listed the above website as the source of the image. In keeping with my word, I put the protection to semi, since the page of the image was getting blanked, including sources and other information before I saw this for the first time. I, however, have some fair use concerns about this image, but I want to wait on that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu Socks

Usually I report this on the vandalism board, but that is the wrong place I guess so I'll report here. Leyasu has once again made his/her daily appearance on wikipedia using British Telecom socks. 217.44.161.233 81.145.241.210[44] --Wildnox(talk) 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also to explain the difference in IP's the one is a regular BTnet connection, the other is broadband. --Wildnox(talk) 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

AOL uses BT Modems, thats proally why its showing as BT. Am i the only person who had the brains to message the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.233 (talk • contribs)

When and how did you message the user?--Wildnox(talk) 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked (for 24 hours) the IP that Leyasu used most recently on Gothic metal, but I still think that Gothic metal should be semi-protected again - this time, for longer. He's been revert warring on that page for over a year, and it's time to let users who are in better standing with the community (i.e. not banned) decide which content should go in that article. If he shows up on that page again in the next several days with another IP, I recommend that the page be semi-protected again. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the page has now been semi-protected. I've also in the last week noticed the user Cronodevir, who stopped editing at the time when Leyasu was banned and returned only to support Leyasu. I filed a report at WP:SSP but I am unsure whether or not it will be noticed. --Wildnox(talk) 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Try a Checkuser instead. As to the semi-protection, I entirely agree. When I was dealing with Leyasu, it was the sole way to maintain a minimum of stability of the page.Circeus 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is a no go; one was put up before but Leyasu's edits are too old to use with checkuser. --Wildnox(talk) 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Incivility at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't Destroy

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

---

Yuser31415 (talk · contribs) is getting a bit out of control there. I was wondering if someone could assist. Just H 19:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you point us to any diffs containing incivility on his/her part? Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Yuser31415 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And, as a defense, I will state my evidence that I have not been uncivil:

I would like to ask Just H to provide a diff showing uncivility. The only comment I made on the debated MfD that could be considered remotely uncivil would be "Why, what a sweet personal attack, Just H. A perfect attempt at making me uncivil, but an unsuccessful one. And please state exactly what policy forbids me from making a "demand"?", which, while sarcastic, is not uncivil. Considering it was made in reply to a comment by Just H, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, Yuser - you're not in a position to make demands in this discussion.". I really don't see why two people have accused me of making "demands", namely Just H and Physicq. I ask these two people to provide a diff showing a statement in which I made a direct demand, and if I did so I am sincerely sorry. But meantime I feel Just H is merely fueling the conversation, and would politely suggest he did not make false accusations and assumed good faith. Thanks to everyone. Yuser31415 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't participated in the Mfd, but did go and read it, I think its something to do with your "tone". You're not breaking any rules, no one's gonna slap any templates on your talk page, but I do sort of see what they're talking about. I'm only mentioning it because you seem confused about why you're getting under a couple of editors' skin, and I think I see why. If you want specifics and diffs, I'll work some up and put them on your talk page. Cheers. Dina 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dina. I'd just have to get about all of your diffs, you keep on jumping on top of people who disagree with you. Fortunately it's done now. Hopefully you can not get so hostile towards people with opinions differing from yours in the future. Just H 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's already been userfied (oh bloody hell! Fresheneesz again!) so I closed the debate. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  At least its userfied and Fresheneesz improved its tone a good deal. I still disagree with its underlying argument, but it has gone from being insulting to taking a inclusionist's viewpoint. *sigh* Template:Emot Yuser31415 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  Fresheneesz did absolutely nothing wrong, please don't imply that he did. ATren 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Other than putting a personal rant into project space, obviously. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

...and the posting of an essay in project space violates which policy? ATren 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that it was an essay in projectspace, but the fact it violated both WP:NPOV and WP:ATK in its original state. Fresheneesz later modified it to a milder viewpoint and wording. Also, I don't think arguing over this is going to get anyone anywhere; let's just go and improve some articles like the essay suggested. Thanks! Yuser31415 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Several editors in that debate contested your view of ATK.

It appears they contested my views without providing any policy to support their own. And now, stop arguing. Yuser31415 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The initial version could be argued as violating the ArbCom ruling against Fresh - see for example the comments about deleting "supposedly" non-notable articles (no, not at all "supposedly", they are not notable, and consensus says we can delete them, for good and sufficient reasons, and Fresh's opposition to that was assessed as disruptive). You'll note that I closed the debate to end the pointless drama, rather than deleting the essay. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So opposition to consensus in an essay is considered disruptive? Are you implying that any comment Fresheneesz makes on notability is automatically a disruption? The facts here are clear: this was an essay from the start and Fresheneesz never claimed it to be anything more; he promptly toned down a few slightly aggressive phrases when others requested him to; and he moved it to user space well before the MfD completed. There was no disruption or wrongdoing whatsoever on Fresheneesz's part. ATren 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are being disruptive and continuing this discussion when I, specifically, asked you to end it. This is my last word on the subject: end it. Arguing is only going to be a WP:POINT violation. Let's stop now. Yuser31415 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith; I am only disagreeing with you. Accusations of disruption and WP:POINT are completely unwarranted here. ATren 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Archived. This is going around in circles. No admin action is required, so please discuss on your respective talk pages, or drop the matter. People accusing others of incivility and such should be mindful of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Dead malls restored

DavidLevinson (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) unilaterally restored a whole bunch of malls that were speedied, prodded, or deleted via AfD, with the rationale: "Shopping malls are the subject of deletionism, often under the assertion of "non-notability". I have restored a few I thought were wrongly deleted. Clearly, the assertions in the articles need sources and should establish notability, however, someone should be watching the mall articles and helping to fight the deletionists. I believe any significantly sized mall is inherently notable, and will also meet the criterial of WP:CORP in that they will have articles about them in regional newspapers, but this needs to be documented. dml 10:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)"

I sent the first one to WP:DRV, but maybe someone can sift through the rest of the restorations and decide what to do with them? ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looking through his log, he epitomizes my point that forgetting edit summaries will cause you to forget deletion summaries. I see a couple restores in there that have no rationale at all. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't have to take a speedy that was against policy to AfD; it is grounds for instant undeletion. The same applies to a PROD that is disputed after being deleted. The only place where DavidLevinson's behaviour is against policy, and thus a problem, is in undeleting articles successfully AfDd, which is a major no-no. If you want the other disputed articles to be deleted, though, I'm afraid you'll have to take it to AfD. Rebecca 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh the A7/G11 speedies can be re-speedied with the same rationale. There's no rule that A7 or G11 can be used only once. Also, restored Prods are also subject to speedy deletion if they fail A7 or G11. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they cannot - that would be a very clear case of wheel warring. If you dispute a contested speedy, the place to take it is AfD. Rebecca 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you repost deleted content from your own copy or if you use your admin bit to do it is irrelevant. Articles are to be judged by their content, not by the motivation or status of the restorer. WP:CSD#G4 is very clear that restored speedy content can be speedied again under the same clause if the content didn't change. ~ trialsanderrors 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

G4 is only applicable to the material deleted via XfD. As a general rule, all contested and controversial deletions should go through XfD Alex Bakharev 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

" This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply." I even provided the link. If you feel this is improper, contest it at WT:CSD. ~ trialsanderrors 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the other link: "Articles deleted under the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion procedure (using the {{PROD}} tag) may be undeleted, without a vote, on reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, alternatively a request may be made here. However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules." ~ trialsanderrors 23:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the policies you have quoted show that your assertion that CSD G4 covers this situation is incorrect. They state that articles that violate any CSD can be speedy deleted again; however, it's my understanding that this is written with recreation in mind, not undeletion. If an administrator undeletes an article that was speedy deleted under a rather subjective criterion for speedy deletion, then it should go through XfD, because whether or not the article meets the criteria is contested by someone who is familiar with policy. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this "I can't read" day? "WP:CSD#G4 is very clear that restored speedy content can be speedied again under the same clause". Same clause → A7 speedies can be speedied again under A7, etc. It happens all the time. The wording for this is found under G4, hence the link there. The rest of your comment is also crap. Contested speedy deletions should go to WP:DRV, and not unilaterally be restored. Out-of-line admins clearly don't understand or choose to ignore policy, so there goes that argument. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I deleted most of these. I don't have a problem with this, as long as it's in good faith. At least one was AfDd not speedied, and restoring that was probably a mistake so I fixed that; it can be DRVd if he wants. We don't really have a proper consensus on what to do with malls - some people think that mere existence is sufficient, which I think is problematic (<cough>schools</cough>), but we'll see. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that in cases such as this, WP:WHEEL is more important than arguing over the letter of WP:CSD. >Radiant< 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Restoring an article is not an admin activity. Anyone can do it from the browser cache, Google cache or Waybackmachine. So redeleting an article is not a wheel war just because an admin restored it. It's normal everyday procedure. The only difference is that admins should know better than to defy procedure to make a WP:POINT. ~ trialsanderrors 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just take them to AFD? Whenever someone so much as peeps at a speedy or prod deletion I did I just undelete and AFD it. If there isn't obvious consensus then use the established consensus-building process. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 01:39Z

Feel free to. There is no rule against it, but there's also no rule that mandates it. The issue is that editors who appeal speedies at WP:DRV have to get a majority to overturn first and then usually have to go through AfD. I don't see why ignoring our procedures should give you an advantage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about rules, though personally I'd rather just be cordial rather and avoid ruleslawyering :) For example, CSD requires a certain amount of judgement, and I make mistakes every once in a while on a snap judgement on whether an article contains an assertion of notability, or even after someone contests a deletion I might still think it falls under A7 but am always willing to open to wider discussion. My personal interpretation is that A7 and prod are for non-controversial deletions; if there is a good-faith objection then by definition it's not completely non-controversial and requires wider discussion. I don't think requiring DRV appeals for A7 deletions is really necessary because it's just another layer of bureaucracy; it's meta-discussion about deletion whereas AFD is the proper non-meta discussion. Just saying how I do things :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 03:13Z

Well I proposed that requests for speedy restoration at DRV should be channeled through to AfD as soon as one admin agrees, but so far there is no consensus for it, so the "ruleslawyering" seems to be the consensus position. Part of it boils down to status quo bias. In DRV you need consensus to recreate, in AfD you need consensus to delete. Also in this case here we don't have a simple speedy reversion, we have a full-bore restoration of multiple articles to make a point per comments ("help fight the deletionists") at Wikiproject Dead Malls above and edit summaries. We're discussing whether the DON'T DESTROY essay was divisive, but behavior like this is more disruptive, and from someone who should know better. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point about status quo bias and agreed that when many articles are involved it's better to seek consensus before any action. (Also I didn't realize there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dead Malls -- I thought "dead" was a cute way of talking about deleted articles!) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 07:50Z

• Consensus should be gained, rather than wheel-warring. If I was an admin now, I'd take it to deletion review, then get consensus before undeleting it to re-AFD. I don't think everyone will agree with how I think it should have been done, but this is my view. Trialsanderrors's point above is well-made too. --SunStar Net^talk 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I'd agree with SunStar actually. I strongly dislike when admins do what David did. Something that massive needs to be discussed first...somewhere. To me it looks like he was making a wikipolitical statement more than anything else. Consensus consensus consensus. Admins (such as myself) do not have absolute power and I dislike when some use it as if we do. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MariusM (talk · contribs)

Could someone please look at user:MariusM's user page? The section on his userpage titled "Tiraspol Times" appears to me to be a rant against user:William Mauco, with diffs and quotes showing how he was right and Mauco was wrong. Mauco has responded on the userpage, and it has turned into a threaded discussion on the userpage. Both users have been blocked multiple times for edit wars, by me and by another admin.

I asked Marius yesterday to remove the comments from his userpage, as I knew this would only cause trouble, and appears to violate WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F: "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." Marius has not removed any material, and has only added to it. I'm asking for a second opinion before I act. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Looks inappropriate to me, at least to the extent that it's discussing another user (comments strictly questioning the legitimacy of the newspaper, while apparently ill-founded, would be acceptable). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've removed the content starting where he begins discussing user:William Mauco (which didn't leave much) and left a note on his talk page with the appropriate links. I don't normally ever edit another user's userpage, but the comments here seemed inflammatory and disruptive, given these two users' prior history. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

admistrator Ran

This discussion does not belong on WP:AN/I; please continue discussion on WP:VPM. —bbatsell ¿? 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

---

I tried to add Falun Gong and Human Rights on the Chinese wikipedia site on 11-22, 2006. it was immediatly by the administrator Mongol, then put under protection. more than a month later, there was still no change. So I exposed that biased action on the village pump misc area on the English site. finally, this administrator Ran added the word Falun Gong on 22:50 2006-12-29, then wrote back: "Also, the Chinese Wikipedia article on the People's Republic of China has an entire paragraph on human rights, in which Falun Gong is mentioned as well. Thus your claim is incorrect."

how can such a liar be an administrator on here and on the Chinese site? --SummerThunder 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not an administrator here. There isn't much we can do about a problem on the Chinese Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am an adminstrator here as well, actually. There is an ongoing discussion regarding this at WP:VPM; interested parties are welcome to come and take a look. -- ran (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To sum up the situation however:

• SummerThunder was banned about two weeks ago at the Chinese Wikipedia, for making personal attacks and spamming the Village Pump;
• Since then, he has become convinced that he was blocked for political reasons, and arrived at the English Wikipedia to complain;
• While reading through his complaints, I noticed that one of them was that the Chinese Wikipedia article on the People's Republic of China did not mention Falun Gong anywhere;
• I thought that this was a legitimate problem, so I went to the Chinese Wikipedia and changed it, while at the same time informing SummerThunder in a reply to his complaints;
• He evidently did not see it, and continued claiming that Falun Gong was not mentioned in the People's Republic of China article on the Chinese Wikipedia.
• I corrected him on that, again.
• He accuses me of "lying", and comes here to complain about me.

-- ran (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion really has no place on WP:AN from what I can tell; does anyone object to archiving and closing this and moving discussion back to WP:VPM? —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Support that. Sheesh, the Chinese admins have a harder job than any of us: Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. They don't need to be defamed here. Dina 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at User:Mongol. Grandmasterka 22:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I have blocked SummerThunder for 24 hours. I have repeatedly warned him about the personal attacks, and yet he persists. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Most of this user's contributions consist of edit warring without discussion, removing information from articles that he doesn't like, and incivil edit summaries like, "Wikipedia is not a place you can show up Persian chauvinism". He was blocked by Pschemp for continuing to remove information, but now that the user has resumed edit warring, I think a longer block is in order. Thoughts? Khoikhoi 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out those contribs: (rv) ... (rv) ... (rv) ... (rv) ... (rv) ... I'd suggest 36 or 48 hours (as in, something slightly longer than the last block), but I also would suggest a longer note explaining the block reasoning, pointing to a couple of policies/guidelines that make it incredibly clear. I don't see much of that on Talk:BlueEyedCat. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Note: This was originally posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; I am moving (copying) it because I believe it should be here instead, and have put a comment to that effect at the original page. John Broughton | Talk 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Guernica (town). User:Sugaar is refusing to abide by Wikipedia:Use common names and the views of a majority of other editors, and is moving Guernica (town) and Bombing of Guernica to Gernika-Lumo and Bombing of Gernika, respectively. It is agreed that the spelling should be consistent across articles. However, Sugaar and one other editor insist that the English Wikipedia should use the official name/spelling of the town in the Basque language. The majority of editors do not agree and this view appears to emanate from a political view — the spelling "Guernica" originated with the Spanish language rather than with Basque — and not with Wikipedia policy. This conflict with policy has been pointed out to Sugaar at length. He has been accusing me and others of bad faith, while we feel that the reverse is true. A RfC has failed to resolve this and as it is "either/or" situation, I don't think mediation will work. If possible, I would like an admin to take a look at this and comment. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved Guernica article back to Guernica (town) and move-protected. Doing same to Bombing of Guernica, both per Wikipedia:Use common names. I'd really like to see a consensus on that talk page (which is a bit of a mess right now), rather than leaving these move-protected indefinitely. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Bombing of Gernika was protected by User:Durova a few days ago, and I've asked him to consider a move back to the more common English title. I'll accept whatever he decides, given his prior role in the matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MrDarcy, I agree with your point above. WP:CONSENSUS is important with geographical issues and moving pages. --SunStar Net^talk 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be an "either/or situation" and as the matter has been debated at length, I doubt that a compomise is possible. Sugaar does not accept my explanation of the policies/issues involved here. Can I suggest that we need a straightforward ruling/statement of policy by an admin? Grant65 | Talk 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

HELP!

I need some help with someone who claims he is a new editor who is belligerent, abusive, and continually reverts. I have made edits to Barrett-related articles that are sometimes 'for' and sometimes 'against' Barrett (not that this is a good label). He is not just accusing me of being biased, he is being abusive.

[here] FIRST: On NCAHF, an editor tagged the article with COPYRIGHT violation, which asks editors not to edit. Curtis has nonetheless edited it, here. And is the tagged article

SECOND: I objected to this editor's massive edits on NCAHF, deletions etc. He has added huge edits that I tried to summarize. (After he reverted about the tenth time, another editor tagged the article as a copyright violation.

This is an example of my response to his accusation.
Here is his response - I can't find the diff, but it is on the talk page:

... As to your concerns about the length of the article, I would suggest that if you lack the concentration to read and understand a simple article like this, perhaps you ought not to be trying to edit it. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this allowed in Wikipedia? How insulting can one be?

Here is the direct quote from the source he cited:

"Although some forms of mercury are hazardous, the mercury in amalgam is chemically bound to the other metals to make it stable and therefore safe for use in dental applications." I wrote this: "Some forms of mercury are toxic to humans, but the NCAHF argues that the form used in dental fillings is not. [7]. "(the citation is from CDC).

Could this have been more accurately written? Of course. And I did change it. When he objected, I changed it to what he wanted, Immediately. And after that, he ridiculed and insulted me, and was abusive. I feel overwhelmed with this, and amazed that no admin has already stopped it. Also, stopped the 3RR, and the editing after a Copyright tag has been placed..

THIRD: He continually reverts now on another article (he followed me to this) --
[45] After there has been extensive discussion on this sentence, and on the entire article.

He will not discuss it on the talk page.
And he is abusive.

Please, I ask anyone just to read all this over -- this is nothing less than an attack: constant reversions, unwillingness to discuss on talk page and unwillingness to be civil by ridiculing, belligerence, insults etc. I do not know what to do.Jance 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking over the situation right now. I'm not an admin, but I can help a little with comments and such since I understand the policy here pretty well. I've already commented on the 3RR report the other user created. I would say that the other user seems mildly incivil from what I've seen so far, but it's nothing terrible. --Wildnox(talk) 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been a constant barrage, aggressive reverting, incivility (insults, ridicule, accusations etc), following me to another article and disrupting that when it has already been contentious...I say 'disrupting' because it is pretty evident he does not care to discuss this on the talk page, or anywhere else. Again, he is constantly reverting. Jance 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MORE by Curtis, just a second ago. here. No court found Rosenthal had libeled Barrett. On the contrary, three courts (at least) found she did not libel Barrett. For Curtis to make this statement, in an article on Wikipedia, is in itself libel. Rosenthal is not a public figure. Fortunately, someone promptly removed it. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Ilena, it is not appropriate (or legal) to make this kind of statement. It is undeniable libel, since there are court findings on this very point! This is breathtaking. But this is the problem with this editor. He is indiscriminate about what he says, and about whom. He is abusive. This is all within one day!!!Jance 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't just a second ago, that edit by curtis was over two hours before your comment above. Like I said on your talk page, he has stopped for now, so you need not worry about getting attention ASAP. --Wildnox(talk) 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I just saw it a second ago. It has been all within one day. Jance 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Rosenthal may be a limited public figure, at least in the context of Usenet, so I don't know if Curtis's defamatory statements constitute libel. (Count the number of her posts on misc.legal.) But the statements there still clearly violates WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. However, since the articles have stated the court's decisions clearly, this statement on its face demonstrates "actual knowledge of falsity" and "reckless disregard for the truth." Therefore, I believe that this would meet the standard for even a public figure. Not that it matters now. The real issues are what are going on at NCAHF now. I have backed off and now Curtis is attacking Ronz. Jance 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I closed the 3RR report as a warning. Not sure about the WP:BLP claims. El_C 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Curtis appears to have no respect for 3RR and consensus on NCAHF. I promised yesterday to wait before taking further action against him on the condition that someone else is looking into the matters. Is anyone still looking? --Ronz 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not even a BLP issue, in a way, it's an attack on a fellow wikipedian: User:Ilena. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your comments. In brief, Curtis's recent edit on Barrett Vs Rosenthal placed this knowingly false statement on Wikipedia: "...even though the information she posted was libelous."[46].

This level of propaganda is one I have been dealing with on Usenet, blogs of the losing plaintiffs, the healthfraud list [47] and various other medium since the Ruling. The losing plaintiff/attorney even posted a probably libelous comment similar to Curtis'. In fact, when I came to Wikpedia earlier this month, it was because the article on Barrett vs Rosenthal was basically unrecognizable and totally biased to the losing plaintiffs. I would appreciate any support to get the final words of the opinion on the article. Judge Moreno wrote (page 39) As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory.[48]. I want nothing more than a verifiable article on Barrett Vs Rosenthal and appreciate all who are working to do so. Jungle Greetings. Ilena 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis has been consistently abusive towards Ronz, Ilena, me, and probably others. I might note that any person that makes an edit (like what Ilena described above), after the article and others like it that the user has read, has knowingly (or at the least recklessly) defamed Ilena. I don't care how inflammatory or outrageous Ilena's previous comments were. The issue has been adjudicated. It wouldn't matter if Ilena was a private,limited public or public figure. This is defamation and is actionable.

If Curtis is not reigned in, there will be many more problems on Wikipedia. I have watched him edit other articles, and he is similarly insistent on having his own way, regardless of others' input. However, he has been absolutely abusive on NCAHF and Barrett v. Rosenthal. Jance 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jacob Peters?

I suspect that Jacob Peters is using the IP 69.110.222.228 to evade his block. The IP's contributions are Soviet-related topics, which are what Jacob Peters usually edits, and take a clear pro-Soviet anti-Western POV lining up with Jacob Peters's: [49], [50], [51], [52]. Perhaps most obvious is the use of the not-too-common term "agitprop" [53], which Jacob Peters also uses [54]. The tone of the IP, dismissing his opponents as illogical and spreading propoganda, is also very like Jacob Peters's. I am uncertain if this is a case for checkuser or not, so I thought I would post here and see if someone can help. Heimstern Läufer 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but with the number of similarities, I would definitely look into a Checkuser for it SirFozzie 01:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note • If you wish to have a user checked with CheckUser, please post on WP:RFCU. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Posted. Heimstern Läufer 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And confirmed. Would an administrator be willing to reset the block, and possibly lengthen it as seen fit? Heimstern Läufer 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done: Now set to expire in 28 days, which was the previous length given by the last to block. Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Extending Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)'s block

1. We block him.
2. He evades the block, and then we reset the block.
3. Repeat step two.

That has basically been Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)'s story. I feel merely resetting the block for the umpteenth time is not working out. I suggest we also extend the block, from four weeks to five (or thirty-three days maybe?). Granted, this may do nothing to stop him from the block evasion, but perhaps he'll realize that in the long run, it's not to his benefit. I'm a bit weary of suggesting an indefinite block, because that will give him no incentive to stop evading the block (and frankly, due to his serial block evasion, I can't picture a time when the current block will be allowed to expire). -- tariqabjotu 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK by me, considering the block-evasion history: thanks. Antandrus (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for thirty-five days, per above. -- tariqabjotu 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a wise decision, given the history. Thanks to both of you. Heimstern Läufer 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• We're wasting our time. This one is not listening. Show him the door. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Agreed. Next time he attempts to evade a block, I propose an indefinite block and/or a ban. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention!

Fhfhfhf (talk · contribs) uploaded the following picture (NSFW!!!!) Image:Moeron22.jpg which is an attack on me ... 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs) has been uploading it to various pages. This may or may not be stemming from this RFC -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

216.254.121.169 abusing vandalism templates

216.254.121.169 places a vandalism template on my talk page in a content dispute [55]. A.J.A. 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account User:Vanitysmasher Disclosing Personal Information

I've only offered one dif for each, but there are at least five.

I am not an admin, and do not know what, if anything should be done, but the revealing personal info part concerns me. Jd2718 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a clear trolling account; I've blocked him indef. Khoikhoi 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User: Khoikhoi

This user reverts totally valid and neutral information from some articles [56][57]. In the first one I merely added a Finnish name of a treaty about a historical border in Finland. In the second one I corrected mistakes and non-neutral wording. I have confronted him about the matter and asked for an explanation on his talk page, but he has directly said that he will not discuss about it, which must be done in a disputed article. He gives no explanations, ever - he just reverts. Is this not vandalism? --Jaakko Sivonen 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's not a vandal. Looking at it quickly, it appears to be a content dispute, not requiring admin intervention. Why not include the name in Swedish, Finnish and Russian? Seems like a simple compromise, for a Swedish-Russian treaty involving Finnish territory, but admittedly I haven't studied the issue. Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the complaint department, Jaakko. --InShaneee 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked Jaakko two weeks for continued personal attacks (referred to Khoikhoi as a vandal, referred to another user as an asshole), given his rather long history of such behavior. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When did I say, "I will not discuss about it"? Did you read my comment on your talk page Jaakko? Anyways, in addition to calling Drieakko an "asshole", his response to Mr. Darcy's block was, "Yeah, well fuck you too!" If that weren't enough, he's broken the 3RR again on the article, which shows that he cannot or choses not to learn. Khoikhoi 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks to add sources. ;) El_C 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

IF he can calm down on his own talk page... --InShaneee 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "terrorizing" is not a good start. El_C 04:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm told now that this user has been blocked on both the Finnish and Sweedish wikis already. That tells me it's most likely not going to solve itself here. --InShaneee 04:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a direct violation of Wikipedia:Words to avoid. ;-) Khoikhoi 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So now you're an article? The sheer vanity! El_C 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, take a look at personal attacks and hatespeech on Jaakko's userpage... MaxSem 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Breast implant, again

As a new admin, I'ld appreciate guidance on policy implementation regarding 2 users who have been revert warring (12 edits between them in a few hours, with 9 reversions). Each has repeatedly reverted the other's changes, but no single change more than 2 times (but 3RR does not entitle people to revert to this limit, just that 3RR is so heinous as to automatically warrant blocking), clearly though both editors should pull away from editing article space and instead have discussed civilly on the talk page, rather than this acrimonious exchange. The article in question is Breast implant, and the 2 users are Jance and Curtis Bledsoe.

Jance has had previous blocks for edit warring on this article under her previous username of User: jgwlaw (deleted at her request when she previously "left" wikipedia) and has been subject of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jance. Curtis Bledsoe has had comments made by a couple of editors on his talk page, advising of disruptive process (repeat reverting, failing to engage on talk page discussion and possible 3RR).

David, this has been months ago. Droliver was also blocked for edit warring. Are you going to bring him here? He has also done edit warring recently, with that article. IS he going to be sanctioned? I t hink your bringing this here now is malicious. Yes, you most certainy are involved. I have begged you or someone to warn Droliver to stop with his insults towards DrZuckerman (who is a Yale-trained epidemiologist, since Drolvier seems to gain credibility by his profession), but David has done nothing. Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this is all now proving sufficiently disruptive to warrant action, but how best to proceed? Merely give each a warning that further action will result in a block (but both have either prior blocks or warnings on this) ? If I block now, presumably Jance's block should be even-handily just a single day to match new-user Curtis Bledsoe's first block ?

Why don't you also bring Droliver here, since he has been consistently guilty of edit warring? Why don't you get anyone else who has been in the past a part of edit warring? It seems to be that you are now coming in after the fact, to punish. That is amazing.Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit history is here, but to summarise the exchanges:

• 04:35, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease) [rollback] -- CB edit
• 02:09, 31 December 2006 Jance (It makes no sense without this sentence.) -- J's revert of previous blanking, whilst I agree previous sentence blanking needed reverting, this is #5 reverting in this tussle.
• 01:50, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease - Actually, the entire setence is irrelevant. The complaints are listed, that's enough.) -- CB's deletion of a sentence (this has been previously discussed on talk page. Whilst not a revert, constitutes breach of partial consensus on talk page thus "problem edit" number 4).
• 01:47, 31 December 2006 Jance -- J's revert (1 of sequence, Total #4)
• 01:37, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (→Systemic illness and disease) -- CB's addition of a "fact" tag
• 01:20, 31 December 2006 Jance (This user should be banned.) -- J's revert (2 of sequence, Total #3)
• 01:18, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert (2 of sequence, Total #3)
• 01:05, 31 December 2006 Jance (restore - someone needs to ban this person) -- J's revert (1 of sequence, Total #2)
• 01:03, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert of J's edit (1 of sequence, Total #2)
• 01:03, 31 December 2006 Jance (Restoring version which included points others agreed on) -- J's edit
• 01:01, 31 December 2006 Curtis Bledsoe (Revert - removed inaccurate information) -- CB's revert (1 of sequence, Total #1)
• 00:51, 31 December 2006 Jance (reverting to Doliver's) -- J's revert to CB's prior edit (1 of sequence, Total #1)

WHOSE BIAS??

If you look at NCAHF you will see that Curtis is still reverting with impunity. Also, if you look at his 'edits' above, you will see that they are in fact reversions. Also, the last person to revert was Droliver. He has continuously reverted, and been warned to "apologize" by David (which Oliver of course ignored). I am not going to revert, but I would like someone to do something on [[]NCAHF]]. WIll Curtis be able to continue with his abusiveness? Or is he just succeeding in driving everyone off, since nobody will stop him? Jance 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

==

I previously informally mediated on this article some months ago, and more recently added some comments on the talk page, so I'm perhaps not entirely uninvolved with the article's development. So thoughts from more experienced Admins (or Admin-watchers) would be appreciated :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations should lead to blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is at least one of the users may have not been aware of 3RR and no reverts by either users after warnings. --Wildnox(talk) 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I already comment on this? I seem to be slightly confused. Zoe, that's why I closed the 3RR notice as there was no warning. El_C 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

David evidently wanted to resurrect it, for reasons of his own. Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that it spans further than one article, and Jance was a different user in the past and had been blocked for 3RR as that user, but since they both have stopped it would seem the blocks(at least for 3RR) would be pointless. --Wildnox(talk) 05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been one user in the past -- over 6 months ago. The block was on one article, on which two editors were blocked temporarily (Droliver and I). It seems that David wanted to resurrect old complaints, and is selective in doing so, since Droliver has edit warred as much as I have on this article. Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Let's see if we can nip this without blocks.--Kchase T 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a mess. I don't know what the solution is.--Kchase T 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't notice that previous user thing. Jance should in fact be blocked, she apparently had been blocked many times for this before, and therefore had full knowledge of the rules. --Wildnox(talk) 05:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone had full knowledge of the rules. Please take a look at what Curtis did after his edits were tagged with Copyright. I might add also that David's friend Droliver has also edit-warred frequently and recently, so if we are going to start blocking people who have recently edit warred and ever had a block in the past, Droliver should be here too. Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you avoided a 3RR block because everyone that saw it thought you were a new user with no prior warning, that is obviously not the case.--Wildnox(talk) 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I believe both users should be blocked, I was holding off suggesting Bledsoe be blocked, but now I suggest that may be a possible solution. --Wildnox(talk) 05:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the block part, as long as neither of them start this up again I guess the best idea would be to leave them be. --Wildnox(talk) 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I managed to cool things down between Ronz and Curtis Bledsoe and (apparently) put an end to the revert warring. I did get Jance's and Curtis' view of events, for what that's worth, but the situation proved too complex in the time I had before I must go on wikibreak, which starts right now.--Kchase T 13:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A guy with sudden interest, intruding on Jance's obvious interest in BI with such heavy, high velocity edits seems likely as a strategic form of wikistalking to me. A number of editors are not happy with Curtis' edits, also including my usual opponents (we now have something, -one, to agree about). see NCAHF article & talk for starters, complaints are also scattered elsewhere. I would be so bold as to suggest that in some other areas Curtis' aggressiveness may cause Wikipedia:Expert retention problems[58] i.e. useful legal reviews for WP articles' complex issues.--I'clast 14:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It was wiki-stalking, and in fact someone else already pointed that out. And it appears that David is trying to use this as an opportunity to block me. I have repeatedly complained about Droliver's edit warring and sarcastic comments - David, only once, told Drolvier that he should apologize for his reversion. Of course, Oliver never did. By David's logic, Droliver should have been blocked, and still should be. I urge anyone that questions the events to look at NCAHF. It's pretty clear what happened. And David has gone out of his way to escallate the problem, after any "edit warring" was stopped and after Curtis' complaint was closed. I was invited to lodge a complaint against Curtis, but declined to because I thought it would look retaliatory. It appears, however, that retaliation is a Wiki tradition, evidently used by admins as well as the community at large.. Something is indeed wrong here.Jance 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF, Again

I will note that Curtis has again reverted NCAHF - this is after every single editor on that talk page had reached a consensus that his edits were unencyclopedic. He is flatly ignoring every other editor. I would like to see something done about this. This includes editors who like Barrett, those who are neutral, and those who dont. So why is one user allowed to run rampant reverting at will, despite a 100% consensus that what he was adding was inappropriate, long etc?Jance 19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ISN'T THIS JUST AMAZING HOW AN EDITOR IS FREE TO REVERT REPEATEDLY (DOZENS OF TIMES), INSULT, CONDESCEND AND ABUSE OTHER EDITORS, ASSSERT WP:OWN DESPITE EVERY OTHER EDITOR'S INPUT, AND IS ABLE TO DO SO WITH IMPUNTY?

FORGET ABOUT PAST MISDEEDS - HE CONTINUES TO DO THIS. HE HAS JUST NOW DONE THIS ON NCAHF. AND I TAKE IT NOBODY GIVES A DAMN,. I BET IF I REVERTED IT BACK DAVID AND OTHER ADMINS HERE WOULD CARE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?Jance 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected, action has already been taken, blocks at this point would be pointless as you both have 4 reverts. --Wildnox(talk) 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Screaming at us won't prod us to do something. Not only is it uncivil, but it gives us the spiteful intention to blatantly ignore it your earsplitting request. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignore what? (oh zing...) HalfShadow 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarified. Or were you being sarcastic? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm. the other other other white meat. HalfShadow 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Jance 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Request

Your user Ilena Rosenthal has smeared myself and others on the talk page for Barrett v Rosenthal. I am not a party to any of her lawsuits and request that innocent third partys' names be deleted from the talk pages and prevented from being archived.

Thank you for your attention.

This is a follow up to a request made on my talk page [59]. This editor, 141.157.9.53, appears to be a Wikipedia novice. --Ronz 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and a user with the appropriate powers will decide if the information should be removed or not. Thanks. --Tango 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the information, I doubt it would be oversighted, though it can always be selectively deleted from the diff history, making it only viewable by Wikipedia administrators. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Premeditative warning of possible future escalation.

Recently User:Ulritz, a user with whome I have had an arbcom case, has started to edit again after a 2,5 month fake leaving Wikipedia. He has since, from the first edit, been trying to persuade me to edit war again, editing the same articles as during the edit warring period with the same patern:

• Insulting talk page comments.
• Removal of sources.
• Anti-Dutch and Pro-German edits.

So if an admin, preferable one involved in the particular arbcom case (Fred Bauder, Charles Matthews, Morven and Dmcdevit), could get involved before I am once again blocked for merely being involved in User:Ulritz uncivil behaviour? Thanks in advance Rex 10:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Ulritz from editing Stahlhelm indefinitely, in keeping with the parole placed on the user at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Administrators should block Ulritz from Wikipedia for short periods of up to a week should he breach this ban. Full disclosure, I have also blocked Rex Germanus for 24 hours for incivility which breaches the terms of his parole, also placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. [60]. Steve block Talk 16:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask for indef. block

I ask for indef. blocking of this user, it is plus minus the same reason as this user. + this user (the same vandalism). Cinik 12:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please report this at Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sanghak is at it again

Despite two recent blocks [61][62], Sanghak is still uploading images without providing any source information. The latest additions are Image:Ladkwesheep.gif and Image:Saint Barthelemy Flag.gif. The latter looks like it was copied directly from vexilla-mundi.com. Can someone please block him again? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned user trolling

A banned user employing the IPs 212.100.250.225 and 83.138.189.76 has been making ridiculous accusations on this page [[63]] and its talk page [[64]][[65]]. The user basically admits he/she has been banned [[66]] and the talk pages for those IP addresses demonstrate a long history of vandalism and trolling. I suspect the user in question was banned by ArbCom (user has a particular grudge against Fred Bauder [[67]]). COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE INVESTIGATE? (Reposted) --Folantin 13:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try. To the IPs reported above

212.100.250.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

83.138.189.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

can be added

83.138.136.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.100.250.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.100.250.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

212.100.250.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.1.109.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Bucketsofg 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Initial observation: not all of the edits are trollish, but he/she seems to take unkindly to the suggestion to sign edits. Bucketsofg 14:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • All (?) the IPs go back to "RIPE Network Coordination Centre" in Amsterdam, and from there to "Rackspace Managed Hosting" in San Antonio. Bucketsofg 14:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where to take it from here. Overall the disruption is fairly minor and might be handled by a few semi-protects. Bucketsofg 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's clearly a troll to me. It's also distorted the talk page by rewriting previous edits to skew the conversation [[68]]. (Incidentally, this edit is unintentionally funny [[69]] and proves, I think, we're dealing with someone who's simply pulling our leg). But edits like this [[70]] do strongly indicate we're dealing with a banned user with a grudge operating surreptitiously. I suspect their intention is not to improve this encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, as you say, only minor damage so far. I just thought admins might want to keep an eye out for it. If it continues of course, further action is in order. I'm particularly concerned about the St Bartholomew's Day massacre page since it used to be a notorious POV battleground until I and some other users fixed it up. I don't want a war re-erupting there just because some malcontent has it in for ArbCom. Cheers. --Folantin 14:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt whether it is worth the effort to try to figure out who this is. I've semi-d the St-Barts page; I'm reluctant to semi the talk page, where tolerance is higher. I suggest that you try to ignore him. If he trolls two or three times in the next few days, repost here and an admin will look at semi-ing the talk page temporarily. As for his blathering on his own talk-pages, I think we should let him spout. Bucketsofg 15:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems a fair solution. If he starts putting a load more nonsense on the St Bart's talk page, I'll probably just delete it if it's offensive. At least he gave me a good laugh with that one particular edit. Thanks for your help. --Folantin 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake royal title on a userpage

I find it rather insulting towards my country that User:Prince Stephen has placed a fake Danish royal title on his userpage. Will somebody please either remove it and the associated "royal title infobox" or persuade him to do so of his own free will? Such nonsense is probably legal under Danish law, since the modern Danish criminal code seems to only ban actual physical attacks on members of the royal family or of the lawful government (§§ 112, 115 and 133)[71] but I still find this highly insulting towards my country. Just for the fun of it, I did a little investigation. His edit history begins with a claim to a Prussian title, which he suddenly changes to a Danish one. I don't know why. On his personal webpage [72] - to which he links - he also claims to be of German royal stock, but he can't even spell the Prussian royal house Hohenzollern or the name of his presumed Prussian ancestor correctly. The latter name would be "Heinrich". Other oddities include that he claims on his personal webpage to belong to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg which would mean a decendent of King Christian IX of Denmark (king 1863-1906), but this is one of the best described families of Europe - and naturally no proof is presented. No proof on the internet either. He claims to decend from a 5th Duke of Saxe-Weimar named "Harold Earl", but no such man is listed on the relevant German list: de:Sachsen-Weimar (Fürstenhaus). Not surprising since these are not German names. The user also bases his fake Danish title on presumed decent to Dietrich of Oldenburg. Apparently he hadn't noticed that this man never ruled Denmark, but that his son was elected King Christian I.

The user has never made any actual edits to Wikipedia, only to a userpage and one post on a talk page. If anybody wondered, Danish law limits claims to the Danish throne to direct decendents of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine born in lawful wedlock. The title Prince / Princess are reserved for such persons, which is why the "Counts of Rosenborg" lost their princely titles the moment they married commoners. I find such fictional titles insulting towards my country and they don't belong on Wikipedia. --Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous and inappropriate WP:ANI report I have ever seen. With all due respect, I think you need to grow a thicker skin—User:Prince Stephen's frivolous use of royal titles does not contravene any Wikipedia policy. At best this is a matter for Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Though out of courtesy you ought to have contacted the user on his talk page to resolve this perceived affront to your sensibilities before leaping to the Administrators' noticeboard. —HRH Psychonaut XVII, Supreme Emperor of Freedonia 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ridicule me, but with all due respect, Sir(e), I see no reason to accept insults towards Denmark's leading family this way. I don't expect you to recognize / appreciate the level of respect that surrounds this family in my country. Wikipedia cares about protecting the rights of copyright owners, howabout protecting the rights of those that hold an official title protected by centuries of history? I thought we had rules about inappropriate usernames / self-promovation just for starters. It seemed rather apparent to me given that WP:Username e.g. prohibits trademarked names and names of religious persons "which may offend other people's beliefs". Danes have more respect for the royal family than for God. You might not find it insulting, well standards are different in different societies. But thank you for informing me about the other page, I did not know of its existence. Btw, Majesty, allow me to humbly suggest upgrading your "HRH" to "HM"? That would seem more in tune with ancient tradition. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As Valentinian says, the user has been editing for a month but has not edited anything but his userpage. I've deleted the page and pointed the user to where he might find free personal web space if that's what he's looking for. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect PlayStation

Can we get semi-protection for this page. Almost every one of the last 50 edits for PlayStation has been vandalism from anon's. (It might also help to look at Playstation 2 although that isn't as badly hit for some reason.) Tocharianne 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it. In the future, a request like this should be taken to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Bucketsofg 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Bucketsofg 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my first protection request. I'll remember that for next time. By the way, isn't there supposed to be a note on the page saying it's protected? Tocharianne 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the reminder. Done. (I put a {{sprotected2}}-tag on it, which is a little sublter: note the top right corner.) Bucketsofg 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also semi-d Playstation. One thing you might want to do is go through both articles and see if some vandalism got embedded. That is, with multiple vandals sometimes a revert will merely go back to previously vandalised version. Bucketsofg 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Massive attacks on people with Czech userboxes

Extraordinarily Little red rooster 88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has got away with vandalsiing about 30-40 user pages with nobody even reverting [73]. He needs blocking and I need hel;p reverting his damage. Obviously nobody was watching RC this morning, given most of these are new users this is appalling, SqueakBox 16:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Yup, it appears there aren't many people on at the moment. Antandrus (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"16:01, 31 December 2006 Antandrus (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Little red rooster 88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism-only account)" - ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam on Passport

An anon user with a dynamic IP keeps adding linkspam to this article. I'm right on the verge of a 3RR and even though I consider it vandalism to keep adding the links, I'd be grateful for an independant editor to visit and cast their eye over the links. Also, I would appreciate advice on what to do next? Page protection seems a bit extreme, maybe adding the links to the blacklist?

The relevant links are

• www.diplomaticpassport.com Diplomatic Passport and Diplomatic Appointment service (with images)
• www.diplomaticworldservices.com Diplomatic Passport and Honorary Consul service (with images)

Thanks --Spartaz 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Note that in WP:3RR, vandalism (which link-spamming is) is explicitly excluded from your "count". (Make sure to make clear in your edit summary that you are "reverting linkspam vandalism, 3RR not applicable to this edit", or something like that. Also, you can report this to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and ask for semi-protection, which prevents IPs from editing, but allows everyone with an account older than 5-days. Bucketsofg 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And removing unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages is also exlcuded from 3RR per WP:BLP.--Oden 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

They're all from addresses in the 82.154.* block, some ISP in Lisboa, Portugal. Should we just semi-protect Passport? A short-term range-block would work too, but it looks like the vandalism is limited to this article. (Spartaz, if you get reported for 3RR, just post a note on my talk page and I'll try to take care of it for you. You're in the clear on this one.) | Mr. Darcy talk 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

sprotection seems like the most low-impact solution to me. Dina 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and sprotected it. If someone comes up with a better plan, please feel free to remove protection. Cheers. Dina 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the quick response. Much obliged. --Spartaz 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for intervention from an uninvolved admin

(Copied from [74])

Mitsos has been edit warring again and has shown total disregard for WP:3RR. Relevant diffs:

1. Mitsos deletes any reference to a victim of assassination (Mallios) being a former torturer for a previous regime - diff.
2. SandyDancer finds reliable source (BBC News Online), and restores references to Mallios being a torturer - diff.
3. Mitsos reverts this to "accused of" wording - diff - first revert.
4. Michaelis Famelis restores - diff.
5. Mitsos reverts again to "accused of" wording - diff.
6. SandyDancer adds official source (Greek Embassy, LA Consulate website) and restores original wording with amends to reflect new, additional source - diff.
7. Mitsos reverts again - diff.
8. SandyDancer restores again - diff.
9. Mitsos reverts to essentially the same version a fourth time - diff.

I accept there may be a debate to be had on the talk page about sources - but Mitsos' starting position here was that he wanted factual information removed from the article - and when sources were presented, he adopted a new entrenched position in line with the Greek nationalist / neo-nazi agenda pushes constantly on Wikipedia. I accept you may not want to be involved in this - but without an admin watching this, all articles Mitsos edits will constantly be subject to a barrage of edits by him seeking to push his POV. --SandyDancer 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically there's a problem user over on Hrisi Avgi, Mitsos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been edit warring and (apparently) pushing a PoV. He's been blocked by me a couple of times recently. I appear to be the only admin keeping an eye on that page, so it's understandable that I would be the one doing all the blocks. Just to ensure I'm still neutral and simply not picking on someone, I'm bringing this here for someone uninvolved to review. Many thanks. -- Steel 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but as far as I can tell, Mitsos should be blocked per WP:3RR. Yuser31415 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeedy. Blocked 72h for 3RR vio (at least his second 3RR vio, last block was 48h, plus some uncivil comments like "I made my point clearly on the talkpage, if you don't want to understand that's your problem"). | Mr. Darcy talk 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. -- Steel 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal in the Giano mess

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop#.28Dec_2006.29_A_Modest_Proposal - bring on the rotten tomatoes - David Gerard 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Does it have anything to do with eating babies? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking revert of undiscussed move

User:SchmuckyTheCat was bold to move the transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong article to transfer of Hong Kong [75] [76]. The move was never discussed or proposed anywhere. He insisted to have what he prefers [77] [78], blocking revert to the status quo ante [79] [80], while he finally went to the talk page and propose there [81]. Are blocking revert of undiscussed moves and disabling redirects (e.g. [82] [83]) ever allowed on Wikipedia? — Instantnood 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)