Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Doc glasgow (talk | contribs)
26,084 edits
→‎[[User:Benio76]]: :I see no reason not to. We can block the IP but permit existing accounts. If this account behaves, let it edit. If it misbehaves block it. Even if it is a sock, if it behaves w
Light current (talk | contribs)
30,368 edits
Line 1,106: Line 1,106:


:::::: There's your problem right there: anyone who has attracted as much criticism and comment as you have and still believes that the problem is ''other people'' is headed for trouble. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::: There's your problem right there: anyone who has attracted as much criticism and comment as you have and still believes that the problem is ''other people'' is headed for trouble. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::::You wouldnt be an A****n by any chance would you?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


::I find it very unlikely that so many admins were wrong about you so many times, is it even a little possible that you may have earned a few of those blocks? [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
::I find it very unlikely that so many admins were wrong about you so many times, is it even a little possible that you may have earned a few of those blocks? [[User:HighInBC|HighInBC]]<small> <sup>(Need help? [[User_talk:HighInBC|Ask me]])</sup></small> 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:16, 2 February 2007

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

    I thought I would draw to the attention of admin the breach of WP:CANVAS on the above page. The AfD was initiated by User:Astrotrain, however, when the vote was not going his way (eight straight Keep votes) the canvassing began.

    the result of this was that the first delete votes came in on this topic.


    Vintagekits, an administrator is likely to review your canvassing issue here, however, I do not believe they will speedy close the afd. Not to worry, the closing admin will review the afd and take into account any single purpose accounts if any, and users with a single purpose. Regards, Navou banter 14:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the editors that User:Astrotrain contacted, so it is hard to say if this is a WP:CANVAS situation, though if I were closing this AfD I'd say that numerous editors who show up to a debate after a message on their talkpage and opine "Delete per nom" carry less weight in the discussion than other editors who have rendered opinions. I don't think this should be speedy closed, but I imagine the closing admin will weigh this when he goes through the AfD.--Isotope23 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the links I have provided you should be able to see that the people he contacted had already vote delete on other recent AfD's that he has nominated so the attempt to contact editor whom he knows will support him should be evident. I know the closing admin will take this into account however someone needs to warning the editors involved in canvassing that it is unacceptable, especially as it is now effecting other AfD's that User:Astrotrain has started and is skewing the vote of those also - it is making a mockery of the process.--Vintagekits 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Address the case in question; ad hominem arguments score no points. Trebor 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Assume Good Faith on Vintagekits' part. I was the one who added the canvassing template to the AfD, after seeing that User:Astrotrain had been canvassing for his POV that all IRA terrorists are inherently non-notable. After observing his behavior, I believe that all AfD nominations by Astrotrain of IRA members are bad-faith nominations in support of his POV-warring with Vintagekits. Argyriou (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that AFD is not a vote- and the editors in question have left perfectly good and reasoned comments on the deletion discussions expressing why they beleive these articles should be deleted. It should also be noted that Vintagekits has a terrible habbit of harrassing other users and admins with whom he disagrees with, and was formally warned about this recently. I would advise him to accept the consensus developing on these pages- namely that Wikipedia is not the place to idol worship fallen IRA members. Astrotrain 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A consensus like the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDade? Argyriou (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (in response to Astrotrain) If someone had pointed to reasonable precedents, then the "Delete" arguments would have held more weight. At the moment, all arguments seem to be "not-notable" without elaboration, or a variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to IRA members. It's not a vote, so a bunch of people turning up and saying the same fallacious things shouldn't (I hope) contribute to the decision of the closing admin. Trebor 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right... I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but which delete opinions contain "perfectly good and reasoned comments"? The ones that say "per nom" or the ones that say "seems like" and are predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and claims that Wikipedia is somehow becoming a IRA memorial? These would carry more weight if the people leaving them would actually take the time to form an argument.--Isotope23 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trebor: To draw attention to Vintagekits's previous naughtiness is not to make an ad hominem point, it's to question his credibility. Isotope23: What don't you understand regarding the argument of IRA memorialising? As I write on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill, there seem to be a large number of articles about minor IRA personalites, citing POV sources and with a latent republicanism/ anglophobic leaning. As far as I can see, the argument is quite clear.--Major Bonkers 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that your argument isn't a deletion rationale... we don't do conferred notability (or non-notability) and the status or existance of other articles is no rationale for deleting or keeping this article. Either the subject meets WP:BIO or he does not and right now I don't really see any credible argument being made that he doesn't meet it. Furthermore, POV isn't a deletion reason either; it is a reason to cleanup and NPOV an article.--Isotope23 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Vintagekits has promised to do a clean-up over-night, so we'll wait and see what turns up. I understood your previous posting to be that you did not understand the argument of memorialisation, not that it was not a good cause for deletion. I suggest that the problem that Wikipedia faces is this: that there are a series of linked articles, all of which display slight but significant bias, and which are set up and maintained by persons prepared to devote the considerable amount of time necessary to this task. I do not agree that this individual merits a dedicated page; the only significant aspect of his life was his accidental shooting by the Police, and there is nothing to stop the manner of his death being reported in a suitable article.--Major Bonkers 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally articles like this would be nominated for speedy delete (nn-bio). It should also be noted that Administrators recently had to speedy delete and blank a page about an alledged IRA member after Vintagekits added unsourced allegations about murder and terrorism. There is a clear danger to the integrity of Wikipedia about creating articles on minor IRA members where there are no reliable sources to back up the information provided. Astrotrain 17:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Diarmuid O'Neill satisfies WP:BIO, with two non-trivial stories linked right there at the article's bottom and the link to the Amnesty campgain. The various arguments about Wikipedia not memorializing or glorifying terrorists don't follow any policy or guideline I know of. {{nn-bio}} would not have been appropriate, and if I ever saw a user who was tagging articles nn-bio because of POV reasons, I'd consider a block for abuse of the speedy deletion process. As for the AfD, I !voted, so I can't do this, but it should be closed as a "speedy keep" (already running about 2:1 in favor of keeping even if we count all canvassed !votes, and possible bad-faith nom). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first version of Diarmuid O'Neill is sourced by The Telegraph, how were there no reliable sources? I wouldn't consider the initial version of the article to be a candidate for speedy deletion. One Night In Hackney 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (to Major Bonkers) Yes, it is ad hominem, because you're questioning his credibility by citing a previous and fairly unrelated matter, while in this case numerous editors agree with him. I don't see what relevance you linking that page has to this discussion. Trebor 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Trebor, it isn't an ad hominem remark, because all that I have done is write 'See:' and provide a link. I have not made any comment whatsoever; it's up to any other interested party to click on the link and draw their own conclusions. I, unlike you, have made no comment and I have had the grace not to impugn either your bona fides or those of Vintagekits.--Major Bonkers 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then the obvious question is why you did that. What relevance did it have? What did you hope to accomplish? Assuming good faith, I'll give you a chance to explain. Trebor 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The obvious answer is that those contributing to this discussion should have the opportunity to see a full picture of a User's behaviour and be in a position to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that means it is ad hominem. Rather than arguing the merits of the case at hand, you're commenting on the person who brought about the AfD. You can say you didn't put across a point-of-view but, being realistic, a link to a CheckUser can't be seen in a positive light. So my original comment stands: you are bringing into question the user, not the AfD. Trebor 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its relevant for users to understand that Vintagekits has been proven to use sockpuppets to canvas support for his attempt to add yet more IRA propoganda. Astrotrain 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And how is that relevant? I am not a sockpuppet; I support keeping the article. The fact he may or may not have canvassed in the past does not justify canvassing this time. Trebor 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DownDaRoad is my account, I have NEVER denied it, there is a difference between acceptable and unacceptable canvassing
     *                    Scale         Message            Audience
    • Accepted Limited posting AND Neutral AND Bipartisan
    • Not accepted Mass posting OR Partisan OR Partisan
    • Term Internal spamming Campaigning Votestacking

    I rest my case.--Vintagekits 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already explained to you, Trebor, that I have made no comments at all on either Vintagekits or his previous conduct. I am happy to let his record speak for itself (as he should be) and for others to draw their own conclusions.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anyone else here troubled by Astrotrain's nominations of all of these articles on IRA terrorists for deletion, with obviously spurious claims of non-notability? These strike me as bad-faith nominations, and I'm perturbed to see that someone might be using AfD in furtherance of a political or personal agenda. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly since a large amount of people have agreed that this person and the others are not notable- this is not obviously the case. Please don't attack the nominator- and put your arguments in the debate page instead. Astrotrain 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, that's just wrong. Two of your noms were already kept, handily. The one in question here is headed for a keep and clearly meets WP:BIO, per two articles in the Telegraph. The question here is whether you're trying to use AfD to push a POV - and in my opinion, based on your comments here and your actions on those AfD pages, is that you are. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to back up my statements with facts:
    And the subject of this thread is snowballing to keep right now, 17 to 7, and most of the delete !votes have nothing to do with notability. Don't use AfD to push your own agenda. If you see articles that are too POV, clean them up. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you to my comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill page. There are a series of articles about minor members of the IRA that, frankly, are being used to memorialise those individuals and promote their editors' own partisan views. Astrotrain finds that objectionable and while it could be argued that the articles need substantial revision instead of deletion, it is also arguable that such articles could be merged or revised under different article headings.--Major Bonkers 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not Astrotrain's argument. He's claiming that these subjects aren't notable, which appears to be false. If Astrotrain objects to the use of such articles to promote partisan views, then he should work on the articles - not file AfD noms with questionable claims of non-notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is part of the same argument. These individuals are not sufficiently notable as to warrant an article in their own right; the existing articles should be merged.--Major Bonkers 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree- he could be mentioned in a list of People killed by the British police or something- but is not notable enough to have an article in his own right. Its not even clear if he was even in the IRA- the Telegraph says he was an IRA suspect, and there is no evidence from a reliable source if this was confirmed. The only source for being in the IRA are unrelaible Republican forums. These articles are dangerous to the credibility of Wikipedia- we've arealdy had to delete a similar article after libelous information was added by Vintagekits. Astrotrain 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tirghra state the he was a Volunteer on page p.365 and Gerry Kelly confirms it. As for claiming that I added "libelous information" - you know that I was the one that was proven correct in the end - would you like me to prove it?--Vintagekits 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think Astrotrain is making bad-faith nominations, too. Argyriou (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a substantial number of people think in a similar way to Astrotrain and it is wikipolicy to assume good faith except where shown otherwise. - Kittybrewster 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Astrotrain has clearly demonstrated bad faith by his comments in the AfD discussions. I'm not going to be convinced otherwise by one of his meatpuppets. Argyriou (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And that, Trebor, is an ad hominem attack!--Major Bonkers 09:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unclear to me and I am not a meatpuppet. Are you a sockpuppet of Vintagetits?? - Kittybrewster 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Kittybrewster 24 hours for the above personal attack (referring to Vintagekits as Vintagetits). I am posting a notification here so that other admins may review the block as needed. I will note, as my own devil's advocate, that I did not find any other recent WP:NPA violation by Kittybrewster, but I thought that attack was egregious enough to merit a block. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You respond to Astrotrain's calls to !vote on AfDs where he's being rejected on the merits, and post the same weak arguments he does. Smells like meat-puppetry to me. Argyriou (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I thoroughly endorse this block. I have given out warnings to two other users regarding Vintagekits. People think they can play the system by trolling someone in apparently trivial ways which they calculate are not egregious enough to get them into trouble, but this way of behaving to someone has a very undermining effect. If this project is to mature, we have to show that we demand respect for editors and that the way to address article content is by adherence to policy, not insidious mental and emotional pressure on those who disagree. Tyrenius 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a friend of Kittybrewster, I think that's an unhelpful and unwarranted punishment. It's also quite clear that he's been provoked.--Major Bonkers 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears it was warrented... that was a "t" is far enough away from "k" on the keyboard that I'm going to have to guess that was intentional. "Provoked" is no excuse at all. If there was a personal attack that provoked this then it should have been reported, but we don't excuse or condone bad behavior in response to bad behavior.--Isotope23 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just to get this straight: accusing another User of bad faith and being a puppet - acceptable behaviour; a play on words of a User name - unacceptable?--Major Bonkers 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that was a response to me or just a general question, but that isn't at all what I said. What I said was that bad behavior in response to bad behavior is not excusable either.--Isotope23 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur Ellis

    Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: [1]) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

    Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

    It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's only semi-protected. Thatcher131 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, and now it's been fixed. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Known Ellis IP

    Any objections to blocking 209.217.96.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for an extended time, say, six months or even one year? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to be able to change his IP at will, at least when he's determined about it. A long IP block won't accomplish anything. His favorite articles are permanently semi-protected already, since both he and Kinsella tear them up whenever they aren't protected. Thatcher131 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True; still, the idea occurred to me when I noticed the comparatively tiny edit history and the suggestion that no one but Ellis has ever used it—and that he returned thereto. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His IP will be stable as long as it's not blocked, but then he switches. Probably DHCP on a cable modem that he can reset by unplugging the modem. Thatcher131 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, probably... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive

    I've been trying to engage with a user about apparent personal attacks,[2] and in reply I'm getting only a reiteration ("proof of concept").[3] I'm at a loss. Any input or assistance would be appreciated. — coelacan talk — 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't go looking for things to be offended by. If you can't get along with that user, avoid them. Jkelly 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And can you suggest a list of other things I should ignore in the future, besides X? Should I wait for Y, or should I set the bar even higher? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that reply was thoroughly inappropriate, Coelacan. You should fix that. However, the editor in question, CyberAnth, has been up on this talk page three times now in as many days for problems. He was supported by Jimbo Wales for his actions in enforcing WP:BLP, and since then seems to be increasing in hostility. It's probably a good idea for some admin to make clear to him that being right once doesn't make him right always, and the behavior on Coelacan's talk page is certainly a personal attack. ThuranX 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Sorry. — coelacan talk — 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ThuranXm, Sir or Madam, that is nonsense. The post to my userpage in question was made some 10 days prior the WP:BLP incidents. See here. Also, this situation is someone writing words, and then claiming that the very words they wrote, when quoted, constitute a personal attack. That is nonsense. I suggest that if people do not wish to have their irresponsible words, spoken in deeper recesses of WP, displayed in more noticeable places, the way to avoid it is to avoid writing such words in the first place. CyberAnth 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just what are you talking about? I came to your talkpage and asked you to explain why you called me a "fuckwad".[4] The whole conversation is right there on your talk page,[5] so I don't see how you could get this mixed up. I don't care about the quote on your userpage and I've never complained about it to you or anyone. Quit changing the subject. — coelacan talk — 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CyberAnth It does look to me like you did call this fellow a "fuckwad". Could you please apologize? That would be most appropriate now. --BenBurch 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to, if only I did. CyberAnth 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a little more digging. And indeed you did not. --BenBurch 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm confused. How is this not calling me a fuckwad?[6] What exactly is it, then? What does "look at this person's actions, they are best explained by fuckwad syndrome" mean, and how can it be construed otherwise? I don't understand why I'm seeing this, you were seeing it, and now you're not. Help? I mean, WP:NPA, what does "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack" mean if it doesn't refer to this?[7] And when I try to engage with this user and ask about it, I get it thrown back in my face ("proof of concept", CyberAnth says), Isotope23 brings it up and the only reply is "It's all just Coelacan. Trust me" and then CyberAnth deletes the whole thing from that talk page instead of engaging with myself or Isotope23. So what are you seeing that I'm not? If I'm thoroughly failing to comprehend something here, I'd appreciate a tip. — coelacan talk — 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go read WP:AGF and apply it to your issue. Thanks! --BenBurch 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Go read AGF! It's all just Coelacan.

    BenBurch, I'm afraid that in order to do that, I need someone to explain to me why calling me a fuckwad is not the same as calling me a fuckwad. You know, it's an honest question that I took to CyberAnth's user page. You can see it all there in the links above. I ask this user if this is a personal attack and if not, how not, and instead of getting an answer I get told the same thing again, that by asking, I'm being a fuckwad: "proof of concept". So I see that User:Daniel.Bryant is active at that time, and I ask Daniel just for input or assistance or something because I'm at a loss for words; I don't know what else to say to someone who just keeps dismissing everything I ask. And Daniel doesn't want any part of it.[8] Tells me to take it to ANI. Where I ask again, repeatedly, for some clarification or input or assistance, and I'm told to ignore it, I'm told it's nothing, but no one will actually explain how this namecalling and refusal of discussion is anything but precisely that. What is the problem here? Is it "all just Coelacan"?[9] If this is not a personal attack, why won't somebody actually bother to try to explain why, instead of dancing around my plain and simple question. I'm being nothing but perfectly clear here, and I'd appreciate it if someone, anyone, would bother to do the same. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry Coelacan, it was a personal attack, and if it was not intended that way, CyberAnth could have apologized for the misunderstanding and explained clearly what he intended. Since he hasn't done that, you have no reason to assume good faith in this case. An "explanation" to a third editor asking about it which just says "It's all just Coelacan. Trust me"[10] says it all: instead of adressing the (real or perceived) personal attack, he blames the other person (not much WP:AGF there). I would suggest to just drop the matter and try to ignore the user, as it isn't worth wasting your time on anymore. You are right, he is wrong, and I suppose it is no coincidence that he has removed the matter from his talk page alltogether instead of archiving it, but continuing this discussion will not benefit anyone, I'm afraid. Fram 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was archived days ago.[11]
    • I explained.
    • I ceased replying extensively to this user because of repeated evidence from weeks back that I could not AGF with him, which has been confirmed to me by multiple users with the same issues with him.
    • I have better things to do with my time than take the matter further.

    CyberAnth 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you have not archived it, it is not in the archive and you deleted it without comment a day after youcreated that archive. I'll assume good faith and suppose that both the deletion and the insistence that it was archived are a honest mistake. As for your other points: as I said above, at this point I think it is better to use everybodies' time for better things. However, this is not about assuming good faith with Coelacan, but about you making an intentional or unintentional personal attack on him/her. Your "explanation" was clearly insufficient and looked more like a confirmation of the attack than anything else. And it has been perceived as a personal attack by Coelacan, me, Janusvulcan, ThuranX, and (to a degree) Isotope23, so there must have been something in your choice of words that could easily lead to the conclusion that it was a personal attack, even after you explained it. Fram 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is about a history of this user you have no knowledge of whatsoever and of which I do not wish to take the time to document. CyberAnth 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to believe you on your word, and the history of this user is irrelevant to any personal attacks you made. You are not addressing anything I said here but seem to only try evading answering. That's a clear enough answer for me. Fram 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Fram is correct that continuing this discussion here is unbeneficial. It occurs to me in retrospect that I should have just gone to RFC instead, as this wasn't quite "administrator intervention" material. I was a bit distracted. My apologies to all for misdirected effort. — coelacan talk — 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Signaleer -- disruptive editing and sockpuppetry

    User:Signaleer is engaging in repeated disruptive editing of P-51 Mustang for many days despite a community consensus against this user's changes and many requests from many users to cease. He is also engaging in personal attacks, userpage vandalism, and 3RR violations. Recently, he has been continuing his disruptive editing using sockpuppet IPs User:72.135.19.52 and User:160.149.99.58 (both IPs from the same geographical area, making the same disruptive edits, user claims to be in US Army and the 160 IP is registered to US Army). - Emt147 Burninate! 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been an ongoing low level edit war between Signaleer (aka IP160.149.99.58) and a number of other editors on the Convair B-36 article as well, all over whether one or another image better depicts the plane, [12] [13], [14], [15], even though the consensus is not in his camp.[16] There has been little effort on his part to discuss the matter on the article talkpage even though he has been encouraged to do so.[17], [18].--MONGO 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Signaleer and two of the IP address have made identical edits on Women Airforce Service Pilots adding non-notable, non-cited material, and reverting it when that material is removed (examples: [19], [20] (where he called the cleanup "vandalism"), and here as an IP). Signaleer also insists on hard-coding image thumbnail sizes in numerous articles, despite being repeatedly advised that this is contrary to the MOS. He has blatantly vandalized a userpage ([21]} and blanked a whole section of the article David Petraeus {[22]). Formal vandalism warnings have been placed on his talk page ({{Uw-delete3}} added [23], {{Uw-delete4}} added [24]; it should be noted that this last one was posted today, and he has not reoffended since its posting). His response to warnings can be read here: [25]. Akradecki 05:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In reference to this "disrputive" behavior and "vandalism" -- edit wars is not a violation of Wiki guidelines. Who is to say what the "consensus" is? This is a free online encyclopedia in which anyone can contribute or edit. I don't see fit certain images, I can revert them. -Signaleer 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit wars are very disruptive to wikipedia and if etending past 3 reversions, are actually a violation of wikipedia policy WP:3RR. Are you claiming to continue reversions under the ip address specified above? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for what it's worth, edit wars are contrary to guidelines, see WP:Edit war. As to who says what consensus is, the official policy does. Please abide by these. You seem to think that edit warring is an honorable sport...it isn't, it's merely disruptive. Akradecki 18:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. If it contines again with the ip reverts, i might have to reccomend a checkuser case. I am relucant to block an editor who has been here for a while based on a couple of IP reverts (as suspicious as they may be). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this morning, in addition to the above comment, he did his usual anti-consensus image reverts to both the B-36 and P-51 pages, which now put him past the level 4 vandalism warnings on his talk page. Akradecki 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Akradecki, in reference to your comment--obviously you think your way is the only way, and anyone elses does not matter and does not count. With that attitude, I think it violates working out to an argreement. I already stated why I believe the P-51 photograph should be left. The context of the subject matter. Is the P-51 used in airshows? Sure, but when was it made and when did it see military action for what it was designed to do? Used a military fighting aircraft in the skies of World War II, not paraded as an antique relic of a goneby era. Obviously you tend to think this matter is a closed and done deal discussion. Since you decided to change the photograph with a disucssion or dialogue of the matter, and the excuse that the photograph that was previously on the page was of "poor" quality. Is a poor judgement and reason for changing it. So who is right? Obivously you think you are, and vice versa.

    In reference to the B-36 photograph, I've already made comments on the dicusssion page. Just a FYI, the United States Air Force owns and operates that museum. The photograph I provided is of better quality and better representation of the aircraft in lieu of Rogerd's photograph which he provided.
    1. The image is at an angle
    2. There is a spectator of the musem in the image
    3. The quality of the photograph is poorer than the one I supplied and
    4. The photograph I provide shows much more of the aircraft versus what he supplied which mainly focuses on the fuslage and not the entire subject matter

    Again, this beckons back to the original problem...who is right? It's stated in the Wiki Guidelines that Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Signaleer 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, in reference to the P-51 edit, the user BillCJ took it upon himself to make the initial change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P-51_Mustang&diff=103326453&oldid=103321047 Please see this initial change of the info box image. His reasoning for this change is poor and in any event, does not fit into the context of the aircraft when it was used. The user BillCJ also took it upon himself to post this initial comment on the discussion page without creating a dialogue first. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AP-51_Mustang&diff=103519676&oldid=103510194 -Signaleer 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the point. You can argue all you want, and though WP isn't a democracy, it is consensus-driven. Other editors have weighed in on the issues you mention, and the consensus went the other way. Don't feel bad, all of us have been on the loosing side of consensus now and again. The point is to respect others, respect the consensus and get on with life. Working well with others means that sometimes you have to realize that things don't always have to be done your way, and you're not the only one with a valid opinion.
    And though you didn't mention it in this comment, I'll include this here, because it's valid for this overall discussion: Your attempt to deflect attention from your edit warring and make it look like I'm the edit warrior as you did at Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots is not appropriate, either. The point here isn't to win a battle, it is to conform our edits to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and insisting on adding undocumented material and calling it "notable" flies in the face of WP:V, and then to call the editor who removes such undocumented material and "edit warrior" is, well, a sad way to try to justify yourself. If the material you've added is notable, as you said, all you have to do is document it. A brief note on how the pilot is notable, along with a citation, is all that's required to meet policy. And, it would have been a lot faster than all the griping. Akradecki 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempting to slander my username on Wikipedia is also against Wiki policy. Which you have done on a number of cases:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Petraeus&diff=104757171&oldid=104692525

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jack_Bethune#WASP_Edit_War

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:P-51_Mustang#Dark_BW_lead_pics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Signaleer#Vandalism_warning

    At this point I've tried to keep this within Wikipedia, the next step will be outside of Wikipedia and I really don't think you want to step there.

    -Signaleer 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Signaleer has made at least 17 anti-consensus image reverts on the Convair B-36 page in the last month and over 10 anti-consensus image reverts on the P-51 Mustang page in the last week alone. Disruptive editing, IP sockpuppetry, and personal attacks should be sufficient grounds for a temporary ban so he can cool off a bit, no? - Emt147 Burninate! 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I passed this while looking at another article and had to come back to it... "the next step will be outside of Wikipedia and I really don't think you want to step there" by Signaleer above looks ominously like a threat of violence, I'm sure the user would like to take a moment and rethink the wording of their statement. Just an observation. Nashville Monkey 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've menionted, I've been lurking AN/I for a while, and more and more often, I'm finding myself reviewing full cases. The actions of Signaleer Seem to me to be escalations of conflict at every demonstrated turn. He's clearly going against the consensus of numerous editors, he has threatened editors, shown increasing incivility and probable threats, and his recent contribution to this very thread is either a legal threat, or a physical threat, which is probably both more severe in seriousness, and less likely to come to pass. Regardless of whether he can actually do anything, Signaleer should get a good long block to help him cool off. ThuranX 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, this looks like some kind of threat. --rogerd 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would just like to add my $0.02 worth here and say that the guy simply reverts contrary to consensus and uses sock puppetry to avoid a 3RR violation, I have diffs that show it: [26] [27] [28] [29] --Patrick Berry 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request assistance regarding User:Derex

    Hello, the User talk:Derex page is being used by its user to conduct a rather bizarre personal smear campaign against myself. Whenever, I try to engage him in a discussion and respond to his accusations he deletes my posts and threatens me not to return to his talk page or else he'll have me banned. I would be happy to stay away from this individual as I very much dislike him, but he has conducted research into 6 and 7 year old posts I made on a previous website and posted them on his user page in some weird attempt to discredit my work here at Wikipedia. Frankly, I find this all rather disturbing. He is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine, so long as we do not put our opinions into the articles we write. To do what he is doing smacks of McCarthism or a witch hunt and needs to be quickly knocked down and knocked down hard. Thank you for your time. --Jayzel 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I know. It is on the bottom of his talk page. See under the heading "research notes. references collated by Jayzel68" [30] --Jayzel 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this mic on? Additionally, he has made numerous personal attacks against me. If you look at his talk page history you will find comments such as "(rm extended jayzel troll ... i fed him, i regret it)" when he deleted my replys to him. --Jayzel 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why we have to wait to see how he responds. All I want is my name removed from his talk page. Since when did it become acceptable for Users to create files on each other? By the way, here is the beiginning of our debate [31] --Jayzel 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should just remind everyone of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

    • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

    • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

    • Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack. --Jayzel 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this had been going on for a while. Here is a comment from Derex back in October 2006:

    [32] Let's suffice it to say that the main author of this article posted a previous version of to FreeRepublic with the title "TREASON OF BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS!"[2]. It's absolutely filled with innuendo and leading phrases. See this edit I just made for a good example. I used to think the facts were ok, but just a little overly-spun. However, I started factchecking another article by this author, and in at least 5 cases the refs did not actually say what the article said. It also has very serious WP:OR problems; it's an embarassment this made it to the main page. I think this thing needs to go before a peer review or something. Derex 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Cricket, cricket, cricket --Jayzel 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Derex is now using a puppet to revert factual and well-referenced information in the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy article.[33] --Jayzel 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) :::Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.
    Is this page a joke? You archived this with no action whatsoever? --Jayzel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if you just shout a bit louder? Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All right, I'll respond as an admin to cut out the crickets. I can't guarantee I speak for all the others but for me, your complaint is rather hard to understand, and seems disjointed. Is your complaint that Derex posted links to articles you wrote in the past? If so, that's neither a personal attack nor a smear - it's not based on your affiliations, but your actions, and it's not exposing you to any outside persecution. Is your complaint that he is rude to you on his talk page, and deletes your posts from his talk page? Well, yes, I would say he could be more civil, but if this [34] is an example of your posts that he deletes, I would have to say that your posts aren't as polite as they could be either. Is your complaint something else? Then I guess you could make it more clear. But, if I may, rather than try to get admins to hurt each other more, let me offer some unasked for advice. May I? Please? Try to make peace. That does not mean "I'll stay off your talk page if you stay off article X" as I think one of you wrote to the other. Instead try to make article X reflect that both views exist, and give proper references: WP:CITE. And try to keep in mind that you are both here to give the world a free encyclopedia, with no personal benefit except a nice warm glow. That's a pretty good thing, implying that you are both likely to be rather good and well meaning people, if you would just stop calling each other names. Instead, try to respect what the other is doing. The encyclopedia will actually get better if the article properly reflects both views. Honest. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the reply. You're missing out on a bit because Derex has a habit of deleting anything he says after the fact. Basically, my complaint is that, instead of helping to improve the article 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, for the last 4 months he has been obsessing about a couple posts I made at a different web site 7 years ago. He has also continuously been mischaracterizing those old posts, at one point saying I was a crazed Clinton hater who accused the president of murdering a few people. When I brought to his attention that if he actually read the posts from the other site he would have seen that I said something quite different. The fact remains, however, we are not supposed to be commenting on editors here at Wikipedia and instead are to be commenting on the edits. His continuing albeit lame attempt to smear me clearly violates Wikipedia policy. With that said, I never had any intentions on requesting him to be banned or blocked. I just want my name "Jayzel68" removed from his talk page. He can keep the links all he wants, I don't care. He should also be given a warning to remain focussed on the articles and not concern him with others' personal opinions or beliefs. Thanks again. --Jayzel 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way, as for the article, all major points do exist and it is one of the most well-cited articles here at Wikipedia. It is also already a featured article, no thanks to Derex. --Jayzel 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example 1 of smear: "pathetic and bording (sic) on pathological obsession", strong words from someone who spends his free time researching and posting Clinton "Body Count" articles. Oh, I see you deleted the links to your excellent Free Republic research on who all Clinton had murdered. Interesting edit for a fellow trumpeting that I once posted, and later deleted, a link to a blog article I found interesting. Derex 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayzel68" What I really said in 7-year-old posts:[35] You need to get over your blind obsession with Clinton. No where in this post did I even hint at Clinton being involved in Boorda's murder. There are thousands of people involved with this China stuff. Clinton is but one link...

    NLP update – COI - domination and incivility - mediation possibilities

    Hello all. Further to the previous 5 notifications [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].– here is an update. Pro nlp editors seem to have changed tack and decided to move - remove - or delete any discussion relating to the long term goals civility. Despite encouragement by at least one admin [41] towards NPOV summarization - domination by pro nlp editors is currently virtually absolute. Mediation by a neutral mediator seems to be more relevant - though these ANI notifications seem to at least be preventing the more basic facts from being removed from the article. The main critical views remain obscured through minimization - crowding out with non-criticisms - and selective editing. The can be fairly easy to present encyclopedically so long as editors work to summarize according to NPOV policies. It seems that the pro NLP group is strongly reluctant to allow this activity.

    User Comaze is removing any information from his talkpage and from the NLP talkpage concerning his known COI [42][43][44]. He also seems to be deliberately dominating the talkpage – restating other editor’s headings – accusing me of 3RR (no evidence) [45] and again removing any goal or intention relating to solving the suppression of information issues [46]. Comaze’s activities seem to me to be deliberately disruptive.

    Comaze and user 58.178.144.161 are dominating the NLP article by removing any critical information placed there – and by restoring argumentative writing [47]

    In order to circumvent COI and meatpuppetry issues they are continuing to accuse me of sockpuppetry when evidence of sockpuppetry is completely absent (I am clearly working on my own and discouraging sockpuppetry – meatpuppetry – or any other such group domination behaviour). [48] [49]

    They are also resisting peer review recommendations to add images and so on [50]

    They seem to be uninterested in/dismissive of getting along with editors of a different view. In the interests of encouraging discourse which enables editors of all views to get along and be civil long term I don’t suggest a community ban on Comaze or 58.178.144.161. I will apply for mediation from a neutral mediator if the dominating group are interested. AlanBarnet 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comaze - despite being reminded of his known COI [51] – is continuing to make promotional edits concerning NLP on other articles [52].
    Comaze is presently unwilling to go for mediation or a third party opinion and is failing to assume good faith [53] [54].
    I would give him time to correct his mistake though. I believe its important to adopt an atmosphere where editors can see sense and foster long term civility whatever the worldview or interests. A conflict of interests does not have to mean the editor will always work completely against Wikipedias interests - even though the history of that editor seems to show a self-serving habit. AlanBarnet 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am at one's wits' end. AlanBarnet could seek 3rd party comment on content disputes. I am unwilling to communicate directly with AlanBarnet or go to mediation (or back to arbcom) at this stage. We already have a peer-review and cleanup taskforce working on the article. I hope you forgive me for ignoring this editor. --Comaze 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Comaze. I'm glad you took the opportunity to discuss. I see no reason why any editor should legitimately have any problem at all with discussing the peer review and Cleanuptaskforce recommendations [55]. I also see no reason why an editor should legitimately be worried about discussing how to edit in a way that the "various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." according to the information suppression section of the NPOV tutorial [56].

    You now seem to be sending mixed messages. You retracted this comment which seems to me to mean that according to you I am supposed to prove good faith before you accept a 3rd party opinion [57]. Does this mean now you are assuming good faith and wish a 3rd party opinion? That would be fine with me - but I first want to give you the opportunity to show that you can be a party willing to resolve disputes without the need for outside help.

    I am encouraging civil discourse with you and the other pro NLP editors using these ANI messages because so far they seem to be doing some good (mostly by showing that at least one editor welcomes the scrutiny of administrators on the NLP article long term). As far as I understand - admin prefer to be patient and allow disputes to resolve with the help of willing involved parties. I intend to be constructive in this way long term as long as there is no objection from admin - and I encourage other editors to do the same.

    You and other members of the pro NLP group have accused me of sockpuppeting eg [58] (actually only four regulars (you, 50, Doc pato, and Fainites) and only user 58 has been doing this disruptively and uncivilly on a regular basis). Here is the policy on sockpuppeting [59] which shows the reasonable intention behind the sockpuppet policy. The pro NLP group may well be considered a kind of sock or meatpuppet group. But if you are willing to work with editors who have other worldviews to yourself - such as myself - without trying to dominate - disrupt - or be uncivil - and as long as you work towards NPOV policy without suppression of information or argumentative editing [60]- then I believe administrators may be more accepting of your presence as a group with COI issues.

    I noticed on the NLP talkpage you mention that there is now consensus on the need to summarize the research on NLP [61]. So feel free to discuss how to summarize according to NPOV policies. Also - feel free to discuss other issues relating to peer review - Cleanuptaskforce recommendations - or solving the information suppression issues either here or on the NLP talkpage. AlanBarnet 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage message

    I do not think that message 2 here is really within the spirit of the project. There is a thin line between personal opinion and hostility and that message (to my mind at least) does not match WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. I am particular concerned about a statement that says You're at work? I think it is the solemn duty of all Wikipedians to inform employers that their employees are milking the clock and wasting valuable company time. Log in and I won't know where you work --Fredrick day 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed WeniWidiWiki's offending comment, here. I see no reason the Wikipedian community should tolerate (a) uncivil comments, (b) personal attacks against IP contributors, or (c) the very philosophy of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit any page. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks have to be directed at a specific person. Do not modify my userpage again. Do not place inappropriate warning /block tags on my talk page. - WeniWidiWiki 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It may not be a personal attack, but it certainly goes against WP:CIVIL for any anon editor who happens to visit your userpage. Also, remember that your used page is not entirely your own. —Dgiest c 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree I removed it again. IP actually create most of our content. Biting them is harmful.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the backup. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's reverted me.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From my talk page:

    "Censorship of opinions you disagree with is totalitarian and despicable. Only a very new or uninformed editor would think my comments or opinions are unilateral. This is an ongoing debate, and I am fully within my right to express my opinion about the matter, just as any user of a controversial userbox is". - WeniWidiWiki 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only within the limits of Wikipedia policy. Your comment is in violation of WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not vandalize my userpage again by censoring my opinions. - WeniWidiWiki 07:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the message and protected the user page. I will leave him a message concerning my protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job! Do they make a barnstar for censorship and squelching dissenting opinion? - WeniWidiWiki 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WeniWidiWiki, this looks like a good time to mention StBenedictsRule. I hadn't thought of Ryulong as a stout monk before, but you get the idea. You're welcome to include both praise and criticism of Wikipedia on your talk page, but do it civilly please, or you won't be able to do it at all. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bainer, if you are insinuating - or threatening - that I should be blocked or banned for holding unpopular opinions on what I consider broken Wikipedia policies, by all means get with it. AGF is a two way street, and obviously sarcasm is too complex a concept for many. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in this case the stout monk, rather than taking you aside for words, has protected your userpage which is more or less the same. But that's really a touch of colour to sell the analogy; the point of making the analogy in the first place was to illustrate that if you consider certain Wikipedia policies to be broken, by all means "expose the matter reasonably". Just don't get contumacious, and furthermore, don't get indignant when people take the contumaciousness poorly. --bainer (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Point taken. Again, I underestimated some people's ability to detect sarcasm, and the blame for that rests solely on my shoulders. I obviously need to keep in mind that comments are easily misunderstood. Despite this, I think having templates placed on my page for personal attack, 3RR, etc. amounted to bullying by an out of line editor, and having the page locked was a bit draconian. - WeniWidiWiki 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You just need to WP:AGF and remember anything ANYONE finds in ANY WAY objectionable you have no right to express. *sighs* Wonderful, isn't it? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppet problem - User:Rjensen

    It would seem that User:Rjensen has used two sock puppet accounts (User:Obow2003 and User:Jozil) several times in votes to create the illusion of consensus. All the edits of Obow and Jozil have been in votes in which Rjensen also voted (see diff, diff, diff, and diff for examples), and their language and style of writing style suggests that they are the same people. Even if they are not, it is obvious that Rjensen has asked these people to vote (making the accounts meat puppets). However, it is my belief that they are all sock puppets of Rjensen. The accounts have absolutely no edits in the main space, so this is the only logical explanation. A more detailed report is filed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjensen, but there is a huge backlog there, so I posted here in hope of getting a quicker response. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rjensen is a problem. He tried to purge the Henry Ford article of any association between Ford and Hitler - In the face of ALL reason and established RS-V sourcing. His justification was that he had *one* book that he thinks says everything there is to say about Hitler that didn't mention it. In fact he just tried the same edits again this week. This in spite of voluminous sourcing I found, and posted to talk. I am not the only editor of the article who opposes this revisionism, either. --BenBurch 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Ramirez72

    User talk:Ramirez72 has been adding the Philippines on the infobox of Spanish language which implies the language is spoken widely when it is not; in fact only 0.01% of the Philippine population speaks Spanish as per the 2000 Census. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eedo Bee

    Has been removing LGBT tag from talk pages of articles relating to our project. His userpage states that she opposes LGBT issues, so it seems that this is WP:POV. A message has been left on his talkpage, but he is continuing the action. Have a look at his contribution history to see. I ask that an admin intervene, as it is time consuming and irritating to have to clean up after him. Jeffpw 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I am a male. Stop with the female pronouns. Secondly, I have been removing unencyclopaedic content, that is all. I maintain that what I am doing is for the good of wikipedia, and I put such a userpage comment because of the LGBT hype up on wikipedia. I am removing the LGBT Issues banner on pages where there is no hint of an LGBT issue. Eedo Bee 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for misidentifying your gender. I saw you referred to as female in another area, so assumed it was correct. I have cleaned up my initial post here. Jeffpw 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I definitely think it's POV - the person seems to be Catholic, so is likely religiously opposed to the LGBT project. Somebody should warn this editor. Also, the "no hint of an LGBT issue" is rubbish, and this isn't for the good of Wikipedia. The person can demonstrate their Catholic, anti-LGBT bias in a different manner other than disrupting Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take your Anti-Catholic attitudes elsewhere. The idea that Catholics set out to destroy wikipedia is offensive. Eedo Bee 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eedo has removed the LGBT banner from (among others) Casey Donovan (porn star), one of the first gay porn stars; Billy Tipton, a woman who lived with another woman in a sexual relationship; and Sebastian, history's first recorded gay icon. These articles definitely fall under the scope of the LGBT project, and the deletion of our project tag is vandalism, in my eyes. Jeffpw 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're incorrect Eedo Bee - I'm blaming you for trying to disrupt Wikipedia, not anyone else, but yourself. It's you who is being a vandal, not Catholics. Other Catholics, while holding their contrasting opinions, choose to respect other people's differing opinions and still edit in a fair, balanced and objective manner. I welcome such Catholic editors, and hope they continue to participate in Wikipedia. Your bias paints Catholics in a negative light, which is wrong of you - perhaps you can take your anti-LGBT agenda elsewhere - this is an encyclopaedia and is meant to respect both sides of the coin. LuciferMorgan 12:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice that Eedo's final userbox says "This user is against LGBT issues and Queer Theory," which is a strong indicator that he is acting for POV reasons.-FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now reverted seven of his edits, and notice he is returning to the pages and taking the tags off (at least one so far0 again. This is getting tiresome, and I politely but firmly request administrative intervention. I should also add that Eedo seems like a new editor. His contribution history only goes back to Jan. 2. Perhaps he is not aware that Wikipedia is run by consensus. I invite you, Edo, to review the policies here before you continue editing like this. Jeffpw 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And could Eedo also explain his libelous personal attack on Lucifer's talk page? Jeffpw 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he misinterpeted my opinions - I was trying to explain that his Catholic views may be a reason why he dislikes LGBT issues etc. This isn't to say all Catholics dislike LGBT issues or anything of that nature may I add. I'd like to also say that the issue is Eedo Bee, and not Catholic editors - Catholic editors have and will continue to play a valid, important role in Wikipedia, and I respect their differing opinions. LuciferMorgan 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked Eedo Bee to stop unilaterally removing the LGBT Studies tag from article talk pages, since this appears to me to be potentially disruptive and point of view-driven. The example of Aversion therapy is clearly within the legitimate scope of the project. I would also ask all participants to step back and remain civil. There is no need to further escalate this dispute, and name calling is certainly not warranted by anyone involved. Thanks, Gwernol 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You people keep editing, so it is difficult to reply. I have already tried 3 times now. I will jus sum up. It does not say I am Catholic anywhere. You people just assumed. You people is the same people that was meant when it was stated "We" Billy Tipton did not have a sexual relation ship with a woman. This is a lie. Those libel attacks are a response to attacks against myself and my beliefs. I will continue to revent non LGBT articles to LGBT banner free articles. Eedo Bee 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you continue, you will be blocked. Please read Wiki policies before you continue on this path. You've already gotten a vandalism warning on your page for this, and an admin has asked you to stop. Jeffpw 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First: Jeffpw please note that Eedo Bee's edits are clearly 'not vandalism. Labeling them as such is exactly the sort of escalation of this legitimate content dispute that I asked all participants to avoid. Second: Eedo Bee, please do not continue to remove these tags without first reaching a consensus on the article's talk pages. I have warned you that taking unilateral action of this kind is disruptive. It is not the way that Wikipedia works and if you persist you can be blocked from editing at all. Finally to everyone involved I again appeal for calmness here. Eedo Bee is correct that the issue of whether he is Catholic is not germane to this at all. Please concentrate on the user's editing actions, not their background. Everyone should read our policy on personal attacks. Thanks Gwernol 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not said a word about Eedo's religion. That is not an issue to me. I do, however, see his actions as vandalism, and highly disruptive to both the LGBT Project and Wikipedia. And I note he is continuing his ill-advised campaign despite several people warning him against it. Jeffpw 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an issue to me either, and I clarified my stance in an earlier comment left here. Perhaps Eedo Bee can also not concentrate on "background" when commenting on people's talk pages. I'm sorry, but this is vandalism which as far as I am concerned - I disagree with the above which Gwernol said, and suggest Gwernol please note I was accused of being anti-Catholic, and the LGBT Project was referred to as "you people" on someone's talk page. I have made no "personal attacks", but I call a spade a spade. Vandalism is vandalism - I don't call it an alleged "content dispute", I call it what it actually is. This is my opinion and I have nothing further to say on the subject. LuciferMorgan 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I note that this user is relatively new and may not have fully understood what project tagging means. He may have assumed it gives project members special rights to edit articles. I have left a note explaining that this is not the case, per WP:OWN and an explantion of why projects tag pages. Hopefully this may calm things somewhat. WJBscribe 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm new to this discussion, but it seems that something needs to be done. The user has removed every warning, and every attempt to rationally reason with him from his user page. The user is pushing an acknowledged[66] POV. The user has now taken to tagging articles rather than removing them.[67] How do we convince this user to find another area of Wikipedia in which he may contribute positively? Mark Chovain 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has already been blocked for 1 week. Any return to this kind of WP:POV-pushing and baiting when his block lifts will be met with an indefinite block. Gwernol 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh - you're too quick for me :). Mark Chovain 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CopyToWiktionaryBot

    It seems like CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk · contribs) is doing a mass tagging of article with {{TWCleanup}} and their discussion page with {{transwikied to Wiktionary}} without any discussion on the article's talk page. There are some long heavily edited articles that are also heavily wikilinked that have been tagged by this robot. The robot's user page says to bring up any issues with the robot on this page.--- Safemariner 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I have blocked Cindery indefinitely for stalking User:Samir (The Scope) in real life and his edits by nominating one of the articles he created for deletion which was clean and plain disruption. It has come to my notice that this user has been spending considerable time being uncivil, disruptive and stirring controversies on Wikipedia and by editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and harrassing, stalking Samir by creating articles on him under the pseudonym "SlimWhore" <http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SlimWhore> along with a banned user. I see similarity in edits and summaries and especially the usage of the double hyphens "--" when I compared them with Cindery's edits. She has also contributed to articles on User:JzG, User:JoshuaZ, User:Azer Red and made defamatory remarks against another fellow administrator User:SlimVirgin. The same user here had had less than pleasant interactions with some of the above administrators. This user does not wish to contribute to the encyclopedia and is not helping it in any way </euphemism> I propose a community ban. Please discuss peacefully and allow Samir to leave comments here. Yours faithfully, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will not be losing any sleep over this. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen Cindery a number of times on Wikipedia and I think she should be banned for stalking and for being disruptive. Cindery's conduct cannot be condoned and we have tolerated enough of such trolling. The personal attacks against the admins will not be tolerated and the ban is necessary. Terence Ong 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick, are you able to provide diffs relating to this user's conduct / misconduct on Wikipedia? Unless they have also broached rules in a similar way on-Wiki (or made actions off-Wiki that may directly impact upon Wikipedia, such as making legal threats or revealing privileged information), their actions on another website are explicitly irrelevant. Even some categoric proof that it's the same person, other than basing this on some prior disagreements and the use of double hyphens would be useful. I agree that Cindery has been a problem user, but I am uneasy with a community ban for entirely off-Wiki actions. Also, can you provide a diff of this user stating they do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia, or is this just your opinion? Proto::► 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block and ban. -- Steel 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically endorse the block (upon reviewing contribs), but I would want the evidence and Samir's testimony to be listed first and foremost in such a report and request for endorsement of an indef-block. There needs to be a firmer basis for such a block, but I'm confident that Samir's explanation may provide it. Rama's arrow 15:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Rama's arrow, essentially I trust Samir and provided there is a reasonable explanation, I would support this community ban. Usually, of course, I would expect slightly more in the way of justification. However, in this case, per Terence Ong, my experience with Cindery was the user was engaged in trolling and disruption. Addhoc 15:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Not here to be constructive, block log indicates 4 blocks since 12/22 not counting this one, so definitely has exhausted the community's patience.--MONGO 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would endorse and support both the block and a community ban. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just by way of my two pence: I generally agree with Rama's comments, and as pointed out by MONGO the user has perhaps exhausted community's patience. Moreover, implicit in "contributing" [I am just giving my interpretation in view of Proto's comments :)] is value addition to wikipedia and not just disruptive edits or editing for the sake of editing/ trolling/ stalking, etc. Coupled with all these negative points, real life threats (if proved explicitly or implicitly) are really serious issues. I would request User:Samir (The Scope) to please offer his comments as regards the real life problems created by this user. The block imposed appears to be fine unless sufficient evidences are available to challenge the same. At the same time, in my opinion too, the actions on another website are explicitly irrelevant. I may add that with wikipedia's system to deal with useless users becoming stronger, such useless users shall surely find the life miserable here and fly to other sites to make noise and enjoy the game of self-befooling process by deriding and maligning the genuine users and administrators and other functionaries of wikipedia. None cares for such funny creatures of the digital cosmos! --Bhadani 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse this, echoing Rama. IronDuke 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't Cindery Little Miss "Stop Wikistalking Me With Your Stalking Abilities, Stalker"? JuJube 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The same. ThuranX 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my interactions with her at the Barrington Hall article I would support this ban. She behaves in a very disruptive way and refuses to co-operate with the community.-Localzuk(talk) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see myself as likely to endorse, but I'll wait for some telling diffs (the "one glance" didn't do it for me, Mimsy, sorry) and/or input from Samir about RL events. Cindery's block log is damning, yes—4 blocks in six weeks, for disruption, sockpuppetry, edit warring, harassment, etc. Wow. But the same log is also mysterious, in that the user has previously been here for nearly a year without getting blocked even once. I don't quite like endorsing something that nigglingly odd, so I'll wait a bit. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • If she really is SlimWhore she appears to have lost it completely. There may be users here who can tell the difference between ED and Wikipedia but evidently she isn't one of them. MartinDK 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely endorse ban. Samir has explained that he has been receiving death threats, and is generally being harassed. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Its a wikistalking troll.Bakaman 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the Barrington Hall debacle the was here on AN/I just last week, this regular user supports this action too. ThuranX 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully endorse the ban. I am aware of the off-wiki harassment targeting Samir and a few other editors. Cindery has been creating disruption on wikipedia too, by working with a banned user.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My earlier questions stand ... is there proof of any of this? Not a single diff has been provided. Is there proof the ED troll Slimwhore and Cindery are one and the same? Can Samir confirm that these death threats he has been recieving are definitely from Cindery? Proto::► 10:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samir has spoken to me via a telephonic call from Toronto. There has been off-wiki harrassment. The pattern I have shown above follows Cindery's personal vendetta against the above-named users/administrators. Add User:Dmcdevit to the list, who is now, an official bureaucratic fuck. The similarities in the edits and edit-summaries are more than reasonable evidence. However, I would not mind users discussing the issue with Cindery on her own talk page. Samir will be posting soon, as he could not come online today. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If SlimWhore and Cindery are the same we need to ban Cindery for the complete inability to do the simplest bit of research, since the page created on me has an email address and contact details for a firm I left years ago, rather than my real email address which is amazingly easy to find! :o) Guy (Help!) 12:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left her a short message about this thread and how to respond to it. I must admit that judging from her edits over there it does seem very very likely that it is the same person. MartinDK 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it is interesting to note that SlimWhore has been closely working with a User:Nirvana on ED. The comments and personal attacks that Nirvana posted on ED have been exactly duplicated on Wikipedia and on various communities on the site Orkut.com. From the exchanges there, it is very clear that Nirvana is the same user as community banned User:Kuntan. Cindery had vociferously defended Kuntan in this RfC, even when 42 well-standing editors strongly endorsed his ban. Moreover, Cindery had once threatened off-wiki action against these users. All these, and the obvious similarities in editing patterns leave no doubt for me.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Cindery has long been a warrior here and has done everything she can do to further abuse the system for her own personal gain. Fraudulent sources, revert-waring, sock-puppets, incivility, stalking, revenge-based RFCs, POV pushing, a complete inability to ever make an argument with anything resembling logic, and the strange ability to push full steam ahead in the face of all evidence... this nonsense needs to end so the real contributes here can back to work. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've received two phone calls at work, one referencing the ED article, and one of which was a death threat. Also e-mails that I've just been deleting. No idea who's calling, but coincidentally started when the ED article came up. -- Samir धर्म 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And who was trying to co-ordinate an effort to have ED shut down? Oh wait... I remember this... that would be me before I was accused on ANI of making libel statements about ED. Oh the irony... MartinDK 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef Ban and archive this discussion I think consensus has been reached here, and i'm glad it's reached that course. Samir or anyone should not have to put up with such threats. Nick should be applauded for this, and now the best thing to do is just let the subject fade away, the longer we talk about it, the more we embolden the Slimwhore/Cindery vandal. Just H 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cindery is an unhelpful and disruptive poster who does not find seeking consensus an acceptable alternative to getting her own way. We will be better off without the wikidrama she brings to the party. That said, I am a little concerned that we have seen limited evidence that she is responsible for the ED edits and the unacceptable phone calls received by Samir. I'd appreciate any more detail that they can offer on this. --Spartaz 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not trust any actions that either Sir Nicholas or Samir take in respect to either User:Cindery or Barrington Hall. While Cindery's behavior has been bad, and may warrant a block, Sir Nicholas and Samir are not fair judges in any case involving her. An indefinite block for AfD'ing a piss-poor article with no real sources which happens to belong to someone Cindery has tangled with smells pretty bad, especially when no diffs are provided by the prosecutor/judge. If someone other than Sir Nicholas or Samir were to state the case for a block, with diffs provided, I'd see no significant issue.

    Most of the rules regarding personal conduct, etc., on Wikipedia, are here to prevent disruptive users from driving away productive contributers; thus the case against User:SPUI - while SPUI was a very productive contributor, his actions were significantly upsetting to other users, and had he been allowed to continue his actions unchecked, Wikipedia may have lost a significant number of other contributors, at least on articles on which SPUI was active. Administrator process is important for the same reason: administrators acting arbitrarily, or who are seen to be carrying out personal vendettas against particular users, make Wikipedia a less welcoming environment for other contributors, and risk alienating large numbers of people. Nick and Samir's tag-team assault on Cindery significantly detracts from my confidence in the administrative procedures of Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cindery's response

    Cindery was recently asked whether she had anything to add to this ANI discussion, but her reply was to simply attack J.Smith [68]. Milo informed her that this wasn't particularly intelligent considering she's facing a community ban, but that was removed as "harassment" [69]. Cindery has very kindly summed up her activities on this site in two edits. -- Steel 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • [this comment cut and pasted from Cindery's talk page David D. (Talk)] "Note: Samir's "phonecalls" have absolutely nothing to do with me, as I made clear above when I said "everything Nick says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" In addition, I think Samir's claim of phonecalls fails the smell test-- anyone who received harassing phone calls at work would report it to their employer and to the police, so the phone lines could be monitored/calls traced--not advertise it on Wikipedia. And they certainly wouldn't delete emails, which could be used as evidence/aid an investigation. He very conveniently has no evidence for his claim (a rather dramatic one, which conveniently moves focus off of his sockpuppetry and COI editing with perfect timing)."-Cindery 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her arguments for Samir's "sockpuppetry and COI editing", with diffs, can be found here David D. (Talk) 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is unfortunate. I approached her on her talk page hoping she would be able to at least respond properly to what might indeed have been very serious charges had Samir been able to positively say that it was her. If that was the case she deserved a chance to reply. She completely ruined that chance and jumped straight into her old usual style of throwing accusations around. MartinDK 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • [this comment cut and pasted
    Every word Nick says is a lie, including "and" and "the." He's just vindictive because I filed an RfC against him last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington
    I have never followed any of Samir's edits or edited any article Samir edits, but I did recently discover what looks like his little sockpuppet army at this page [70] [71] [72] [73] (because I follow Blnguyen's admin log somewhat ever since he protected Barrington Hall without a request for page protection):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Research_Council_of_Canada
    sockpuppets:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roytoubassi
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_Stanley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.Stanley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barry_Zuckerkorn
    -Cindery 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that this IP was also a sockpuppet, on the same page, unless it was a login failure: 205.211.160.1 (5 sockpuppets in one short discussion...)-Cindery 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's an interesting little interaction: User:Roytoubassi changes another editor's comments:[74], and a real editor explains to him that he can't do that/must revert:[75]. The reversion is made...and then Samir undoes it sometime later:[76].-Cindery 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Werdna's RfA

    Please see the latest question posted at the RfA. I've asked User:Konstable for a specific diff or diffs. --Dweller 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs? The question's about IRC. yandman 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I (now) presume the question is about the top result on the Google page he linked to... --Dweller 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed. The ArbCom decision clearly says no links to ED are allowed. In this case Konstable was simply using Google as a link echo. Anyone who thinks they can trust the authenticity of logs published on ED is out of their mind. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why did you blank the entire question? I've reverted it, removing the link and explaining why. It's unfair to censor a legitimate (and serious) question just because of the link provided. yandman 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With all invalid evidence removed, the entire question is just defamation with no support whatsoever. It's clearly not acceptable. Yardman, let's say you go through an RFB and I ask you the question of whether you've stopped beating your wife ... should I honestly expect the question to stand? --Cyde Weys 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, there's no need for straw men here. The "Are you still beating your wife?" question only works as intended when the response is limited to one word, "Yes" or "No". In fact, a response of "I've never beat my wife. Do you have any evidence or is this completely baseless" will cause it to backfire in short order. Werdna can respond however he wants to this question, so I see little need to remove it. ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a damaging question though, and it will put doubt into some people's minds regardless of what the answer is. "Wow, they're asking him if he's beating his wife now, I don't think I like this guy ..." --Cyde Weys 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Konstable didn't ask Werda why he made these comments; he asked him if he made them. Therefore, your analogy is inapplicable. —David Levy 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it has no relevance to being a good bureaucrat. Anyway, it isn't defamation: Konstable makes it clear that he does not trust the logs 100% ("Is that really you?"). Let Werna reply: you must admit that if it is a fake, it's a very good one: the tone and technical expertise are spot on. yandman 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't revert the question. Any oversighters in the house? :-) --Kim Bruning 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would an "oversighter" be needed? ChazBeckett 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How's this? It seems pointless to make a fuss over it, and obviously with that censor language people will know where to go to get them, so I blurred it a bit more. And those logs are legit by the way, I was there. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming these are real, what's to say they aren't taken out of context? Werdna obviously didn't do any of these things allegedly being said by him, so what is the big deal? I've idly speculated on the best way to make a vandalbot myself. It's an interesting topic. But it would be a terrible thing if those logs somehow materialized here and were read by people who didn't realize I'd never actually do those things, and suddenly, things on-wiki are being unduly influenced. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We don’t like legal threats either. Even when anyone actually never do take legal action. --Van helsing 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur. Legal threats are very damaging in their own right, and are used to coerce people into making different actions. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the question again. Comments on IRC (by themselves) are not cause for on-wiki action (which is why we don't post IRC logs on the wiki), and throwing around unsubstantiated accusations is just trolling, and sullies the entire RFA process. Philwelch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I restored it again. This is not an accusation; it's a question asked in good faith. Your personal opinion that it's irrelevant doesn't give you the right to make that decision on behalf of the community.
    Incidentally, your use of the administrative rollback function to revert my edit (as though I'd committed vandalism) was highly inappropriate. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an accusation in the form of a question, and an attempt to introduce suspect evidence into consideration. With the evidence rightly removed, it is just an unsubstantiated accusation. Anyone who restores the question again will be blocked. Philwelch 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Under what policy would that be acceptable? Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is not a loaded question. Konstable plainly acknowledged that the log might not be authentic and merely inquired as to whether or not it is.
    2. Your administrative rollbacks were bad enough, but I'm absolutely stunned by your decision to block me (the first time that I've ever been blocked) after you violated the 3RR in your editing dispute with me. —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To eliminate the appearance of bias, I've recused my vote in support of Werdna. Philwelch 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How does that eliminate the appearance of bias? We already know where you stand on the issue. —David Levy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to remove your !vote, and I'd urge you to reinstate it. There can be disagreement about including the question or not, but that doesn't affect anyone's right (and I'd say obligation if he or she has a strong view) to express an opinion on an RfA. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per User talk:Philwelch. I see that Steel has now blocked Philwelch for 3 hours for "disrupting Werdna's RfA." I do not know that this is going to have a calming effect on the situation. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He unblocked David Levy as well. --Majorly (o rly?) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not seen that Philwelch had blocked David Levy—for 24 hours for "trolling," no less. I see no justification, either in policy or pragmatically, for either block. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Philwelch had reverted that page four times, and thus Steel's block could presumably be justified under 3RR. Whether or not it was a good idea is a bit more suspect, I'll admit, but it looks to me like it fits policy. Heimstern Läufer 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree, though don't object to unblocking if Philwelch agrees to stop blocking and using rollback on other editors he's fighting with. -- Steel 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Noted, although 3RR was not mentioned in the block summary. But when a contested matter is under active discussion here, I see no need for anyone to be acting unilaterally, much less blocking other admins. I find Philwelch's block of David Levy much more troublesome, although I think both sides have valid points on the merits of the underlying dispute. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your concerns are the same ones underlying my remark about "whether or not it was a good idea". Heimstern Läufer 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Phil should definitely have not blocked the user he was warring with does not negate the fact that David Levy, an experienced user, racked up three reverts himself and should have known better. I'm uncomfortable with blocking one and not the other as if only the one was wrong. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy did I violate? —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a serious question? You have suggested that four reverts was wrong, but that your three reverts are not even a little bit wrong. 3RR is absoutely not an entitlement, and asking what "policy" you violated (yes, edit warring is against policy) sincerely disappoints me. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Phil's edits (continually removing another editor's good-faith question and personally attacking that individual by referring to it as "trolling") bordered on vandalism. Nonetheless, I had no intention of reverting a fourth time (let alone a fifth), nor would I have blocked an editor with whom I was engaged in an editing dispute. —David Levy 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweep the dirt under the rug? How would that be constructive? —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too late anyway; the dirt has accumulated to ridiculous amounts. — Deckiller 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely do not unblock Philwelch, regardless of the end result of the question. JS rollback on a legitimate edit is an absolutely unacceptable action, especially in a dispute. -- Renesis (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheesh, and I see he also blocked the user he was in conflict with. I would have gone for a longer block than 3 hours. -- Renesis (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have been reaching to block anyone, but of course Philwelch did it first in this instance, and this isn't his first controversial block. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This question reads to me like a distasteful attempt at poisoning the well, and an abuse of the RfA system. RfA exists solely for the community to come to the best decision about a candidate. It is not a place to get your kicks in. To that end, if you disagree with someone, make a dispassionate remark to that effect. If you truly have a question that you need answered before you can know whether you will support, ask it reasonably. If it's a damning supposition that you found with a Google search, but you still, for some reason, feel you must ask it, use some tact and ask by email or talk page. Posting unqualified speculation at the top of an RFA i the kind of thing you do if you want to derail an RFA, not decide where you stand, and it's the tacit acceptance of such behavior because commenters should be free to say or ask whatever hurtful things they want without challenging that's kind thing that makes RfA such an unnecessarily stressful and nasty place sometimes. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AGF - I have indeed tried other means first.--Konstable 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I know very well about the nature of ED, but I have been told something which made me suspect that in this case it is indeed true, though I will not present any more hear-say here. I do wish that Werdna would respond to this, rather than people on this notice board wrangling and threatening blocks on each other on irrelavent side issues of ED links / logs / RfA questions, etc. So stop this thread now, wait for Werdna.--Konstable 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor note to no one in particular: I shoved it back in, let Werdna decide whether or not to answer it. Milto LOL pia 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Phil reverted five times (twice via administrative rollback). I was in the process of typing a 3RR report when he blocked me (one of the editors with whom he was engaged in the dispute).
    I suggest that Phil's block be extended slightly (not as a punitive measure, but to prevent him from causing further disruption at the RfA before it closes). —David Levy 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not happy with some aspects of Philwelch's behavior, including his quickness to block and the wording of the block summary, but would support unblocking him now to participate in this discussion given that he has now promised at User talk:Philwelch not to further edit Werdna's RfA. As a process point, David Levy's observation about five reverts may be true, but when there is an active discussion underway at ANI, I submit that any related issue should be brought that that discussion, rather than somewhere like 3RR where it may come before someone who is unfamiliar with the overall controversy. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done just that. It disappoints me that otherwise reasonable administrators can be so easily trolled into blocking one another. —freak(talk) 23:21, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
    People disagree, which is fine, but I don't feel particularly trolled, nor do I believe my actions were unreasonable. -- Steel 23:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a neutral admin who has not participated in Werdna's RFA, I reviewed the 3 hr block, and I think Steel's action was appropriate. I declined the request for unblock, as I feel the block on David Levy was innapropriate and in clear violation of WP:BLOCKnot to mention the 5 reverts. I had a feeling, though, that the block would be removed. C'est la vie. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't participated in that page either, and I'm not impressed with anyone's conduct today, so maybe we're on the same page. —freak(talk) 23:52, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)

    You win. New policy: Personal attacks and defamation are now allowed as long as they're phrased as RFA questions. Philwelch 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually it looks as though you win: the new policy is that violating 3RR and blocking someone with whom you're engaged in a dispute is now allowed so long as you have a friendly admin on your side. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I resent being called friendly, but to answer your question, everybody loses in this situation. —freak(talk) 00:13, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
    In all fairness, Phil promised to stop editing the RfA page and to engage in constructive discussion. I'm very troubled by his actions, but blocks should not be punitive. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a better idea. How about: Concerns about personal attacks and defamation contained in something like RfA questions are brought to the RfA talkpage or to ANI for discussion and consensus, rather than edit-warred over to the further disruption of the RfA? Newyorkbrad 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an awfully laissez-faire approach toward poorly-sourced negative material about the subject of a page. Disclaimer: I'm not implying that established users (even the non-pseudonymous ones) should be protected under the same WP:BLP policy as article subjects, oh no... that would be impossible to really enforce, but let's try to show a little bit of decency, or at least some tact in RFA discussions. —freak(talk) 23:38, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
    Geez, I would love for Werdna to have the choice of answering that question or not. If your going to be an admin, you need to be ready for such things. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the explanation that you needed to be unblocked in order to post?
    Accusing a good-faith editor of "trolling" is a defamatory personal attack. Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety are accurate is not. —David Levy 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, "accusations of impropriety" should be based upon a user's edits and linked to as such. An accusation conjured from a clear blue sky or an off-enwiki humor site might even be considered trolling, especially if the desired response is moral panic rather than a straight answer. —freak(talk) 23:48, Feb. 1, 2007 (UTC)
    1. The belief that a user's off-wiki actions are inadmissible is patently false. Everyking was de-sysopped because of off-wiki actions.
    2. Again, this was not an accusation. Konstable plainly acknowledged that the log may have been forged and merely asked Wedna whether or not this was the case.
    3. I see no reason to believe that Konstable seeks anything other than a straight answer. The only "panic" has been from users who believe that other users will read the question and assume that Werdna is guilty of a heinous infraction. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Everyking got screwed.
    2. [77]
    3. You have no trouble assuming good faith of Konstable, and of our pundits at ED, but you can't assume good faith of Werdna or Phil? What has either of them done to you?
    —freak(talk) 00:45, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
    1. Perhaps so, but that clearly establishes that an editor's off-wiki actions (as they pertain to Wikipedia) are not irrelevant. Why should they be?
    2. Yes, it's possible that the logs were forged. No one has claimed otherwise.
    3. Firstly, I don't assume good faith on the part of the ED people, but that doesn't automatically mean that the log is inauthentic. Secondly, I do assume good faith on the part of Werdna. If he were to reply to the question by indicating that the log is phony, I would believe him. Thirdly, I haven't accused Phil of acting in bad faith (which isn't the same as messing up), but I think you know what he did to me. —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accusing a good faith editor of being a troll is a defamatory personal attack.
    • Accusing a good faith editor of trolling, despite their good faith, is not.
    • Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety are accurate is not a defamatory personal attack.
    • Inquiring as to whether or not accusations of impropriety which cannot be substantiated are.
    • Two editors fighting at cross purposes, even in good faith, is damaging to the encyclopedia. I'd rather see discussion here than anyone blocked, but if blocks were the only way to stop this, I agree with Dmcdevit.
    The most germane point right now is my fourth one - are the questions/accusations of impropriety which cannot be substantiated beyond ED, an unreliable site, disruptive trolling? As another voice from the peanut gallery, I think they are and should be removed from the RFA. --InkSplotch 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The only substantive distinction between accusing a good faith editor of being a troll and accusing a good faith editor of trolling is that the former implies long-term actions. Both are personal attacks.
    2. The IRC log appears to be authentic, but the fact that it might not be is the reason why Konstable calmly and politely inquired as to its accuracy. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that you are a good faith editor. I don't think you were trolling, but rather manipulated into restoring a vindictive character assassination on the basis that it might be true. Let's face it, if you ask somebody a question like that, chances are you've already made up your mind. On a side note, what are the characteristics of an authentic-looking chat log? Timestamps with intervals proportionate to the byte count? A healthy dose of emoticons? —freak(talk) 01:06, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
    1. I can't get inside Konstable's head, but I see no evidence of a "vindictive character assassination." Konstable clearly and unambiguously noted that this may have been a case of impersonation.
    2. The log appears authentic because it contains very specific information (including technical specifications) to which few people are privy. Nonetheless, it may have been altered or fabricated in its entirety. Konstable didn't even imply otherwise. —David Levy 01:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of people seem to be laboring under this misconception that this was a good faith editing dispute. The "question" was completely out of line. Posting it on the RFA is, as Dmcdevit noted, an attempt at poisoning the well. If we can just post completely unsubstantiated accusations on RFAs as "questions" and demand candidates to answer them, and leave those questions visible on the RFA while voting is ongoing, the entire process is invalidated. Posting the question in the first place was so incredibly disruptive that keeping it off the page is a justifiable use of administrative privileges, no different from reverting libelous article content. I did what I considered necessary and proper to protect the RFA process, and used my administrative powers for the betterment of the project. I don't apologize for being extraordinarily bold in doing so. My persistence and dedication to the project are limited, however, which is why I dropped the issue and was reluctant to post this full explanation. Philwelch 23:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, this was not an "accusation," nor was it pulled out of thin air. While the website in question is far from the most reliable, the log appears to authentic. Nonetheless, Konstable didn't claim that it is. Konstable calmly and politely inquired as to its accuracy (while explicitly noting that it might be a case of impersonation).
    Regardless, you blocked me (an editor with whom you were engaged in an editing dispute) for "trolling." You know darn well that even if I was wrong (which I obviously dispute), I honestly believed that I was right and was acting in good faith. To block me was an egregious policy violation. —David Levy 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be more accurate to say that I blocked you for disrupting and tampering with the RFA process. As the question was written when I saw it, the accusation was completely unsubstantiated. It apparently could not be substantiated without linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is apparently disallowed. Either way, either an unsubstantiated or poorly-sourced accusation of making certain remarks on IRC has no place in RFA. And it was an accusation, followed by a demand to confirm or deny it. It's inconceivable to me that intelligent people would not understand this. Philwelch 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, your opinions are sacrosanct, and anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent and should be blocked for "trolling." —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also hasten to add that I was just about to come here and announce my block of you for purposes of administrative review, until I was wrongly blocked myself. Philwelch 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what? I'm actually more disturbed by your insistence that you did nothing wrong than by anything else. People make mistakes (especially in the heat of the moment), but you're calmly rationalizing your outrageous behavior and providing no indication that you don't intend to repeat it in the future. —David Levy 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, let's not lose any more morale over this. The last thing we need is to see another handful of administrators exit stage right. —freak(talk) 00:10, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)

    I can certainly agree with that sentiment. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have agreed not to edit the page again, I would like to ask someone to reinstate my vote before the debacle closes. Philwelch 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have done so [78]. -- Steel 00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you change it so it enumerates correctly? There's a colon after the octothorpe that needs to be removed. Philwelch 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fixed. -- Steel 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To whoever really wants to know an answer to the question, wouldn't emailing Werdna have been so much better, rather than causing all of this? – Chacor 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree on this point. All of this should have been handled better from the beginning. Heimstern Läufer 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly wouldn't know what to say to somebody who disagrees with Chacor's point directly above. —freak(talk) 01:17, Feb. 2, 2007 (UTC)
    Konstable does say above in this thread that he tried to reach Werdna through other means before posting the question, though he doesn't say just how. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and that is why I did try to contact him off-wiki first.--Konstable 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys & gals - you are turning this into something huge which it is not. Has Werdna's RfA been harmed? No. Have I alleged that Werdna is a vandal? Heck no! (though some people would like to interpret it differently) Nothing productive has come from this discussion and it is only escalating into more and more personal attacks, and assumption of bad faith from all sides. This is a dead end discussion and should not be continued - it is a waste of time, it has caused disruption, nothing has come of it, and nothing will.--Konstable 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note: the questions has been answered just as I had expected, and I have removed it. I have left a note here. It appears I was indeed not practising "defamation" and I did not cause "moral panic" as some have suggested.--Konstable 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New MyWikiBiz sock

    I'm wondering if User:Samsara is a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz? Check this out. --72.94.166.89 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Samsara didn't write that, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did (who is now blocked). Not sure whether it should have been restored, though. —bbatsell ¿? 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to fill out the back story, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indef blocked sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz. Given the IP's only two edits, I'd say there was a reasonably strong possibility that this is MyWikiBiz back to harass editors and push his agenda again. Gwernol 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just getting pathetic. Doesn't Gregory Kohs realize that he is clearly unwanted here? What corporation in their right mind would pay him money to write an article knowing that if it's discovered it will probably be deleted and their reputation besmirched? They're basically paying a saboteur to try to sneak in and do something against the wishes of the vast majority of our community. It just doesn't make for good business at all. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If he vandalizes, I concur 100% to block him straight away. But if he or someone else makes constructive edits and gets paid for it, I don't see what the big deal is as long as they're WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR compliant. To do otherwise is just cutting off our nose to spite our face, and I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Just H 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
    I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Then you're not paying attention. Try here, or most succinctly, the black box here: note the sig. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. .Some talkpage archive commented on by a few people constitutes "the consensus of the community"?
    2. . One person, Jimbo notwithstanding, represents "the consensus of the community"? You certainly don't seem to have alot of respect for the thousands of contributors that make up the "community" if you think such a narrow crossection constitutes a "consensus". Just H 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to pay attention is not my problem: I gave you some pointers -- which only served as a place for you to tee off a bunch of wikilawyering. One more time, and read carefully: He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now, was that clear enough, or are you going to make some disingenous claim about how I need to prove "the consensus of the community" isn't against spam? --Calton | Talk 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...So when someone disagrees with you, you resort to badmouthing policy in order to protect it(or whatever the negative connotation of "wikilawyering" is supposed to be). Good job, Calton. No, what i'm saying is how can you claim "consensus" from a handful of people or even just one person? It's not entirely your fault though, many people seem to do this, a lack of a clear definition of consensus is endemic on Wikipedia, which ultimately leads to people trying to "claim" it by badmouthing anyone who disagrees with them. As for the Wikibiz guy, I can see what you're talking about in terms of bothering people, but like I said before, if he contributes constructively and NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it, kudos for him. Just H 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the previous section header here, which was misleading (and inadvertently unfair to an uninvolved editor). Newyorkbrad 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A number of self-identified Freemasons and I believe several who have not disclosed their conflict of interest are both edit-warring on the article and lobbying to change keep votes in the AfD. Identified Freemasons include: MSJapan and ALR. Undisclosed Freemasons probably include Blueboar, WegianWarrior, and possibly several others. Could someone look into this? 204.122.16.13 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So far their actions have include: claiming on the talk page that quoted text doesn't match the reference given, when in fact it does. Voting in the AfD without disclosing their conflict of interest. Repeated removal of properly cited material claiming it is t "misquote" when it is not, and using other misleading edit summararies to remove or change information that they would prefer not be presented in Wikipedia. 204.122.16.13 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not in any way involved in this AfD,but a quick cursory check of the text attributed to "Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor" in the article against this seems to indicate the text in the article is completely fabricated... I don't see those quotes anywhere in the online text...--Isotope23 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Simply click through to the appropriate chapter for the first three degrees and search for "Peter Gabe". 204.122.16.13 17:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, there it is... that's what happens when you do a quick cursory check.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Before anyone gets too trigger happy here, look at the contrib history of 204.122.16.13 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Frater Xyzzy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Frater Xyzzy originally created the entry in question, and is currently blocked for sock puppetry. This single purpose IP editor originates in Seattle, where Frater Xyzzy also lives. Do not enable a user who is evading an indef block to prove a point. - WeniWidiWiki 21:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to point out that he was blocked as a sock of me, even though he is a seperate individual, simply because he edited from behind the same router as I do before he moved. Since I am not in Seattle, and he currently is, that means that he was falsely blocked as a sock, and he is not evading anything. Alternatively, for the sake of argument, if he is me, I am not blocked and therefore he would not be evading a block. I have removed my votes and comments from the AfD, because I have no desire to be blocked again for the actions of another user who has been falsely identified as my sock. Jefferson Anderson 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jefferson Anderson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), the sockpuppeteer, also voted in this AfD. Since this report he is now removing his vote from the AfD, but also other users comments about his sockpuppetry [79]. While Anderson/Xyxxy/204 has the right to strike out his comments, it is unacceptable for him to be deleting the comments of other participants in the AfD. This is the same sort of thing he was doing in the Jeff Rosenbaum AfD . ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I didn't vote. 204.122.16.13 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop falsely accusing me a sockpuppetry. There are a lot of assumptions here, and I am trying my best NOT to be confused with someone who is not me. Jefferson Anderson 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sexual Harassment

    I have been continuously sexually harassed by this User:Woot Hoot the owl aka WOOOOOOT and their sockpuppets for the past day and a half. I find it extremely disturbing that they are targeting me. He now knows how to change his IP address and claims he is going to do this every day. Can someone please put an end to this? Darthgriz98 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection of your userpage and talkpage may solve this. Thulium 18:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I also just now left her a note to this effect. Expiration set for a week (love that new protection-expiry feature). Antandrus (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been following this vandalism and try to block the offensive vandal as soon as possible. I will also keep aneye on page protection and if it is needed again, feel free to notify me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Teapot Dome Vandalism

    The 'Teapot Dome Scandal' page has been vandalized - not severely, but bad language has been used. Could this be cleared off?

    89.240.65.214 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone already reverted it.--Isotope23 18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Wikipedia a joke?

    There are what, almost 2 thousand administrator's here and no one responds to requests? Does enforcement of Wikipedia policies not exist anymore? --216.153.154.85 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would need more information to answer that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator absence FAQ suggests the following:
    • "This administrator is intentionally left blank."
    • "All our administrators are busy enforcing policies on other articles, rather than chatting on ANI. Please explain your question in more detail, and an administrator will be with you shortly."
    • "All your administrator are belong to us".
    FT2 (Talk | email) 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BINGO And he's is conducting personal attacks on this very board, no less. --216.153.154.85 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems you have need of this lovely hat. Derex 05:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks on the Administrator's notice board, no less.
    This anon has removed Derex's comments four times n'counting from Derex' talk page, calling him a 'troll'. If you ask me, the anon's behavior seems far more trollsome [80], [81], [82], [83]. Ho-hum. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you're looking for dispute resolution. This situation, from what I can tell, does not require administrative intervention, which is what this noticeboard is for. —bbatsell ¿? 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked 24h for WP:3RR. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm against the block or anything, but isn't it a little disingenuous to direct him to WP:PAIN? Since it kinda no longer exists, you know. ^_^ JuJube 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez, how come no one ever tells me these things? :D RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the following edits. I am going to block this IP for one week. If anyone else has any better ideas, feel free to just do it. :D

    Note, I have not done anything yet, the threats were made a few weeks ago. ideas? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It may make sense to remove the threatening message, or replace with a polite reminder to make sure that all contributions follow our content policies, but I don't think we need do anything else. Jkelly 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a static IP -- BESI (a.k.a. "journeyeast) has its server on it (see the domains tools section labeled "server data")-- this means that IP address is probably one of Comcast's business accounts. This is not a shared IP.
    See these for additional information:
    Thanks for any help you can render. I'm not an admin, so there's not much I can do here other than document and clean up. --A. B. (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    New accounts for Iraqi dinar vandal

    He's now editing from The other worldz, The purity worldz, and No problem 1284. He has discovered that if he creates the account and lets it "age" for a few days, he can again vandalize Rafida and Nasibi, despite the semi-protection. He's also started reverting my edits -- though only one other article, so far.

    I must say, he's certainly challenging the "anyone can edit" policy. Zora 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nothing really to see here unless I'm missing something fundamental. One has no contributions; one has one vandalism incident and one reversion of someone else's vandalism; one has one good edit and one POV push, soon reverted. By all means monitor them, but so far there's nothing that WP:AGF won't cover. Thanks for letting us know, though! 〈REDVEЯS〉 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest opening a sock investigation on Angelz of rozez (talk · contribs), Songz of lifz (talk · contribs), The purity worldz (talk · contribs), The other worldz (talk · contribs), Solaariz dayz (talk · contribs)...--Isotope23 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Redvers, when AnonMoos or I bring up the Iraqi dinar vandal here, there's usually someone who doesn't understand the problem. This has been going on for ... what, a year? ... has happened a dozen times, it involves the use of rotating anonIPs or the creation of multiple new acounts, and it's always an attack against the same two articles and the same two editors. Sure it doesn't look like much if you look at just one account. Look at a few hundred to get the full picture. The guy is mentally ill, is my guess, and is determined to PUNISH the people who thwarted him. Zora 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanaldism from user 216.107.210.140

    This user has been making several repeated attempts to vanadlize the Aqua Teen Hunger Force page and his history shows a past of repeated vandalism. [86]

    --Skeev 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like at least 7 of his last 10 edit on Wikipedia were vandalism and he'd been blocked several times before for doing the same. I guess what I'm curious about now is, what consitutes "persistant" vandalism? Not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just trying to understand the system. --Skeev 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is persistent vandalism, but it doesn't go here (here being WP:AN/I), it goes on WP:AIV, which is the noticeboard specifically for vandalism. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I misread Gwernol's post. Thanks for the correction. --Skeev 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User 198.160.250.2

    This user vandalised Sasuke Uchiha several times and should be warned (or i possible blocked). The number was 198.160.250.2 Jacce 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As it says at the top of this page: "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see WP:AIV" Thanks, Gwernol 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blizzard man

    Someone has set up the article for Blizzard Man and are trying to depict it as a real person instead of a character on Saturday Night Live. I tried to change it, but they seem to like the joke so much they reverted it. Remember 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone deleted it before I could smerge it to Andy Samberg. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant acts of vandalisim are taking place on the page for Patrick Macias, a page that should probably be deleted anyways. Gabberone

    User:Ed g2s again

    I realise that this is likely to do little good, as many (most?) people here seem to think that because user:Ed g2s does good work dealing with images, therefore he can't also behave badly. I'll try though.

    Would someone review his over-zealous attitude to image removal from articles, please? His Talk page indicates just how much bad feeling he's stirring up. Instead of the normal process of tagging an image as fair-use that could (in some bizarre Wikipedia use of "could") be replaced by a GDFL image, and placing a tag at articles where it's used, he simply removes the images from teh articles. He does this, indeed, even when warning templates have been placed at articles, with deadlines a week away. There is no advantage in this; Wikipedia is not in imminent danger of being sued for using fair-use images on pages about actors, singers, etc. All that he's doing is getting a lot of people very angry and frustrated.

    I'm not suggesting that he stop his no-doubt valuable work in stripping the encyclopædia of images, just that he slow down and try to apply some judgement. Hos activities no longer verge on the obsessive; they've overstepped that line. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's crossed the line far too many times, just yesterday he violated 3RR (again!) edit warring over fair use images because he did not believe they are fair use (though consensus says they are) - List of Heroes episodes. Ed refuses to provide rationales generally as to the problem he finds wrong and oversteps the mark when he disrupts pages to make his point. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? I don't have a problem with him removing the fair use image. If there could be a GFDL image in its place, then there shouldn't be a fair use image on the article in the first place. Fair use should be restricted in cases where it is not possible to get access to a similar or appropriate image. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mel, did you have any particular edits in mind? Browsing through Ed's most recent contributions, maybe you meant the removal of unfree image galleries from Harry Potter articles (here and here). Or maybe it was removing screenshot images strewn about en masse in a list of episodes of a TV show (none with any critical commentary - or even any commentary at all - where they are used ). --bainer (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at Mika (singer), for example. As I said at the beginning, I was expecting a list of things that he's done of which people approve; that's irrelevant to my point.

    I might add that this tosh about an image's being repleacable by a GFDL image really needs to be reflected upon. First, artists and their PR companies put out images to be used by magazines, Websites, etc., in order to illustrate and identify the people involved. We've got terribly neurotic about using them in the way that they're specifically intended to be used — not because our use is improper, but because someobody else who uses our material might misuse them. Frankly, that's their responsibility, not ours. Secondly, the claim that an image mustn't be used merely to identify the subject of the article: why on Earth not? That's the point of most images of people in most reference works. Thirdly, the idea that a fair-use image can be replaced; who says? It can only be replaced if somone editing Wikipedia has taken or is able to take such a photo. Who is in a position to know that? The person going round Wikipedia removing fair-use images from articles, or the editors themselves? This is a use of "can" that's peculiar to Wikipdia, so far I'm aware, and it's irritatingly inaccurate.

    In addition, the fact that people are allowed to up-load fair-use images, and even provided with a licensing template specifically for such images, only to see their work undone on the basis that they were wrong to up-load them in the first place isn't winning Wikipedia any friends.

    Still, that's all beside my main point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you disagree with our replaceable fair use policy bring it up at WP:FU. If you disagree with the tag being placed on the specific image then dispute it on the image talk page. Otherwise stop adding the image to the article citing some non-existent process. ed g2s • talk 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    read the template placed on the image; it gives the up-loader time to respond. Read the template on the article; it gives editors time to respond. Why do you insist on going against both? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hay ed g2s, This is about your behavor and aditude, not about FU. Why not try to remain civil and actualy respond to Mel's comments? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Mhstebbi

    Mhstebbi (talk • contribs • logs) has been adding images to articles on Icelandic politicians. Not once has an image uploaded by him had any source information. He seems to have copied images from the websites of the Parliament and President of Iceland without permission. Some of the images are of deceased people and it might be possible to put some sort of a fair use claim on them, but other images we are certainly not allowed to use, for example Image:Þorsteinn Pálsson .jpg, Image:Þorsteinpalsson.jpg and Image:Myndpálsson.jpg which are all the same image and he has put into the article on Þorsteinn Pálsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    The reason I am bringing this up here is that he has had repeated warnings about this but ignores them and just reinserts the images. Therefore I think an admin might need to look into this. Thanks, Stefán 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Insert-Belltower

    Insert-Belltower (talk · contribs · logs) consistently removes confirmed Sockpuppet tag initially placed 1 May 2006 by user:Mackensen. He also has placed a sock tag on my user page in retaliation for my efforts in repeatedly replacing the sock tag on his user page. Believing my actions were in support of policy WP:Vandalism against abuse of tags, I reported this matter to WP:AIV, but after some discussion Hús recommended I report this matter here.

    The following are a few of the significant diffs establishing a pattern in this case. Each time either Insert-Belltower (on some prompting) or someone else would replace the tag, after which IB would wait for awhile and then remove it:

    1 May 2006 [87] removes sock tag placed by Mackensen.

    29 August 2006 [88]

    30 Aug 2006 [89]

    17 January 2007 [90]

    31 January 2007 (the beginning of this current episode) [91]

    Insert-Belltower was the subject of a prior RFC here:

    I'm taking this matter seriously because this user has recently returned after an absence and currently edits the very article he was proven to have used socks in the past to manipulate. I think the sock tag should remain as warning to any new users who deal with IB, especially as pertaining to the University of California, Riverside article.--Amerique dialectics 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I'm being trolled here. Someone developed a duplicate SOCK of my account, with the letter "g" substituting for "q." Please block this account before he does more damage. --Amerique dialectics 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the account Amerigue (talk · contribs · logs). This user struck the report made by me. Please investigate!--Amerique dialectics 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, would it be ok to request an IP check on "Insert-Belltower" and "Amerigue"? I have a strong suspicion that these two are the same, and I'd be delighted if this could be confirmed.--Amerique dialectics 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Duck test. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I went ahead and made the request anyway because I want to be sure. --Amerique dialectics 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the RFCU was deemed unnecessary by user:jpgordon. I've been reverting Insert-Belltower's user page to keep his sock tag on, and I'm sure my doing this may be seen by some people as harrassment or engaging in an edit war so wouldn't it be better if his page were s-protected or something? Best, --Amerique dialectics 09:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michelle Rodriguez

    Various anon IPs (presumably the same person) have been adding this page to Category:Bisexual American actors. Whether this should happen has been the subject of an RfC with consensus saying it shouldn't be included, due to the actress not self-identifying as bisexual (see talk for full discussion). However, the IPs refuse to discuss the matter and keep adding it back. What should we do? Semi-protection might work, but the IPs come back sporadically to insert the information. Is this just a case of watchlist and revert? Thanks. Trebor 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scratch that. The anon started talking. Trebor 00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the "started talking" consists solely of cutting and pasting material from earlier in the talk page, before the RfC was initiated, which means the anon editor is completely ignoring the discussion and subsequent consensus. PubliusFL 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Grisham

    Anyone familiar with the POV fight at this article? An editor pointed me there; I'd like some history before I consider stepping in. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From the fishouse

    This user's contributions look like an advertising campaign to direct people to the web site.

    The first submission was From the fishouse, an article about the web site. Since then, a succession of short biographical articles (example: A. J. Collins) have been created, each one linking to the web site and containing attempted links back to the From the fishouse article which are broken due to capitalization mismatch.

    Notice that the articles are being added in alphabetical order at a steady pace. As I write, we're only in the D's... There are going to be a lot of them. --Tcsetattr 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked him to stop for now. - brenneman 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has already admitted to being an employee of the company he took his name from at Talk:James Hoch. He says he has been asked to post these bios to Wikipedia. Pretty obvious conflict of interest, aside from the fact that the articles are being used to push people to the website rather than to establish any notability for any of the poets this has created articles for. Resolute 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should delete these bios as spam. They are all unreferenced except for the link to the website. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even easier - speedy delete per A7. MartinDK 07:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I nominated the two and they were deleted. Can I nominate/tag the rest as well or will I be guilty of spam nomination/tagging if I do that? There are quite a number of them but they all qualify MartinDK 08:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tag them all for speedy. Or just put a list of them here. Or put a list on my talk page and I'll zap them. Any way is fine. Proto::► 10:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I have posted the list on your talk page. MartinDK 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (apart from three, as they were properly referenced, formatted, and didn't read like adspam). Proto::► 11:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please protect Seabirds

    The currently featured article Seabirds is under attack from vandals. Can someone please protect it? TheQuandry 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be at WP:RFPP. I will list it there. PTO 02:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this at all related to the vandalism at Gull? 343gspark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 71.109.13.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have both put stuff there about "Mrs. Legind's math class" and "Scott's backpack". --Mdwyer 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's today's featured article on the main page. We should watchlist it, not protect it. Kla'quot 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Waynakusumak? (talk · contribs) makes vandalism threats

    Please block this person. He vandalized Seabirds, then when someone reverted and added a welcome note to his talk page, he responded with this [92]. Obviously no good will come of this person, and in fact the Seabirds article has been vandalized all evening. TheQuandry 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. His first edit shows he's no newbie vandal. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Caliendo - vandalism

    An anonymous editor (special:contributions/130.127.230.167 and special:contributions/66.191.54.91) keeps adding junk about football predictions to the Frank Caliendo article and getting rude to people who revert it. --rogerd 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    diffs as necessary, please. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure 130.127.230.167 - [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]
    Plus blanking [103] [104] [105]
    66.191.54.91 - [106] [107] [108] [109]
    Also, as part of dispute resolution, I have posted on the talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, but got no response either place, so I posted here. --rogerd 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered dispute resolution? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is what I am doing - first the talk page, next a project page, and now I've brought it here --rogerd 05:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, I was implying WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More Iraqi dinar vandal accounts

    Could someone please rollback everything done by Mercy Drops (talk · contribs), Efnasharana (talk · contribs), Downez shinez (talk · contribs), and Shadow gost (talk · contribs), then block these accounts as Iraqi dinar vandal socks?

    Can't someone PLEASE find out which IP is registering all these accounts, and show down anything coming from that IP? Zora 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dang, I can't figure out why Shadow gost isn't showing up properly ... Zora 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed template for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked two of them, but couldn't find Mercy Drops and Downez shinez. Misspelled names? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You could request an IP check via checkuser. I don't think there's any way other than that. Grandmasterka 07:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More vandalism. Downz shinez (talk · contribs), Efnasharana (talk · contribs), Past dayz back (talk · contribs). I'm sick of this. Zora 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate Content!!

    {{helpme}} When you print out the Wikipedia page on Saudi Arabia, some racist/hateful text appears right before the section marked "Cities." The text does not appear when looking at the page online - ONLY when you print it out. Who can I talk to about this? How can this be changed?? Please help! Rememberfeb 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I answered your question at the help desk. The vandalism seems to have been removed. See WP:REVERT for how to help with this in the future — Deon555talkdesksign here! 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try going to the print out version at [110] and clicking the refresh button while holding down shift. That should refresh the browser's cache, which means the text should disappear from the computer. Part Deux 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Name It and Frame It?

    Someone keeps trying to merge content about a book to an unrelated article. There is no support on Talk:Name It and Frame It? and he added the merge tag two weeks ago and none supports a merge. Worst of all he is conflating a wikipedia list of unaccredited schools with institutions a scholar specifically labelled as degree mills. FGT2 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ArtKoen seems intent on advertising a website (see here]) that violates a number of WP:EL guidelines. The website is full of affiliate links (scroll down to see them) and articles that are available at numerous other websites, including the websites of the articles original authors.

    There appears to be some sort of conflict of interest, but Arbcomm and the COI noticeboard suggested I put the notice here. Article: Ball python Jhall1468 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attack and abuse of personal userpage

    User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

    after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it [111]) he was recieved an issue of a final warning [112].

    his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

    "this finger pointing [at me] is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

    in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    -- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Wikipedia. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text reply here and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. [113]). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    there's no need for you to remind me of "good faith" after you decided to paste my username on your page for display even after it was removed by admin Ryanpostlethwaite - [114]. your current response here follows with that same false naivity you deny (your added reply see: reply herehas no mention of abusing my username does it?).
    Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
    (1) And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. (see boldened text above) - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.
    (2) User Jaakobou proudly supports zionism and does not feel that being labled a zionist is a personal attack. I personally do not share his belief. But I do believe that one can learn much by examining his actions on Wikipedia. [115] - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.
    I repeat on my original request on this user so long as he insists on using wikipedia in a counter-productive manner. Jaakobou 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone ask this guy to calm down. ThanksAbu ali 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that singling out Jaakobou and posting his name in the Zionism links on Abu Ali's user page was inappropriate, and I am glad to see that Abu Ali has removed it from there. But it's not such a big deal, surely? After all, it's not as though Jaakobou considers the term to be defamatory. I don't see any inappropriate content on Abu Ali's talk page; and after all, on his own talk page, Jaakobou refers to " crack head arabs" and suggests that other editors are lying. Isn't this also a personal attack -- and racist, in addition?
    There is no possible excuse for banning Abu Ali, even the original "offence", which I do not think warranted any sanction, has been remedied by him. I suggest that Jaakobou drops the whole storm in a teacup, and gets on with editing. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Roland. Personally, I don't like political material on userpages, but many people do this, and I don't know that there's a clear rule, is there? If there's not a clear rule, I think we need to be very careful about singling people out. As far as insulting people, I recently had a situation where two other users were dealing with a much more serious political accusation, and along with some admins, we talked it through and got the material removed. I think Jaakobou had a right to be annoyed, or even offended, but even alleged incivility can be dealt with civilly, and in this case I think that was accomplished with the removal of the material. I hope that resolves the issue. Best, Mackan79 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this? -> (1) help me RolandR, (2) help me Mackan79 <- (1) RolandR, please don't change the subtext of conversations i've had in an aggressive atttempt to present me as racist - consider this a pre-warning. (2) Abu ali has made it clear that he percieves zionism as a derogatory affiliation (see quote (2) above) and to add to a personal opinion (which he's allowed to have) he used wikipedia in a counter-productive manner to say the least. (3) considering this new multiple account activity i think Abu ali should simply use wikipedia in a productive way and entertain his perception on zionism on the regular hate-websites rather than a serious enterprize... i suggest users RolandR and Mackan79 consider doing the same (i.e. use wikipedia in a productive manner). Jaakobou 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And presumably trying to get other users banned is an example of using "wikipedia in a productive manner"? I did hope that a word from other editors would convince you to calm down, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Anyway this page is not the place if you insist on lashing out at me or other users. I suggest that if you want to persue this, look at the resolving disputes page. Abu ali 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) perhaps you should not treat warnings with provocation? (2) you can still change your mind and cease counter productive use of wikipedia... if you do this, i will not pursue further activity. (3) "lashes... or other users" (see above boldened text) is what i consider yet another personal attack which is besided the issue of your own activity which is being reported after more than fair warning. Jaakobou 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    off-topic

    There is no such thing as a pre-warning. If you want to complain about me, go ahead -- I'd like to see you explain how your dismissive reference to "a couple of crack head arabs" was anything but racist. And, before you accuse others of being aggressive, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. RolandR 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    reply:

    • you've made a fair point about my use of terminology (albeit there was no racial intention) and i have changed it[116], apologies to anyone who considered it as a racial slur.
    • i request for you to show that same anti-defamation POV in regards to the misuse made on zionism by your friend Abu ali.

    Jaakobou 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    off-topic 2: fair use image issue

    I am very surprised that anyone sees a copyright issue here. Naji al-Ali created Handala as a symbol of the Palestinian people, the image has been very widely copied by other artists and cartoonists, in graffiti, on t-shirts and elsewhere. It is universal in Palestine. Preventing use of the image in Wikipedia is almost equivalent to censoring a conscious Palestinian presence. Surely, if there is any doubt, it is possible to contact his family and establish the status of this image. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No one stops you from doing just that (be sure to get a release that is acceptable to Wikipedia, not just an informal mail or even worse a telephone call). Until then, it is a fair use image, and we have to follow the image policies. Note that e.g. the famous Che Guevara photo Image:Famousphotoche.jpg is also a fair use photo. Fram 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is a difference between a cartoon character and a photo. Even if the particular version of the image used by Abu Ali is fair use, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent him from himself drawing and using Handala. I don't think that the idea itself is copyright. RolandR 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are not allowed to do that either. Making your own version of copyrighted cartoon characters is still a copyright violation (otherwise you could make your own Dilbert cartoons and no one could stop you!). Fram 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but is Handala copyright? I don't think so, which is why the image appears so frequently on t-shirts and other commercial items. RolandR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be free of copyright, but unless we know for sure, we have to act as if it is copyrighted. I see Calvin and Hobbes on illegal T-shirts all the time as well, but they are definitely copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution here. 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

    BLP dispute on Undercover Mosque

    there is currently a dispute on Talk:Undercover Mosque where several editors (Hypnosadist (talk · contribs), CltFn (talk · contribs), Gerryfarm (talk · contribs) and A2Kafir (talk · contribs)) have constantly insisted on inserting libellous material based upon the findings of a controversial (and heavily criticised) documentary. the article currently declares, as fact, that specific individuals have been inciting murder against others, as well as "advocating" the "beating of children" among other things. previously the article was even worse, stating that the subjects of the documentary "sanction[ed] pedophilia" and advocated the "degredation of women." naturally, the accused have strongly denied the allegations in seperate press releases, and they have not been convicted in a court of law (which is required to condemn people of the aforementioned: the article is stating that these people engaged in criminal activity). a major problem here is also that the comments surrounding the quotes are OR, as they are wiki editors' commentaries of what they conclude from the primary source (i.e. the documentary transcript itself). the new changes to the article which now implicate specific individuals is a clear-cut violation of WP:BLP, although even before these changes i would still argue that the article infringes BLP as the individuals subject to the controversy are listed elsewhere in the article. i had forwarded an alternative proposal (which still needed a bit more expansion), which i think avoided the problem of OR conclusions as well as BLP. i bring this dispute onto ANI because of (what i perceive as) the defamatory, libellous material insisted by several users upon living people, and i would appreciate comments by experienced users/admins on this. thanks ITAQALLAH 10:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Itaqallah's summary of the dispute unduly confrontational, but would certainly appreciate feedback on whatever BLP issues might be involved.Proabivouac 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Itaqallah challenges the information that the Channel 4 documentry provides and hence the article. He complained that the quotes were not attributed so i spent an hour doing that, only to have my work reverted with a one line reason. I'll follow what the WP:BLP expert says.Hypnosadist 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "He complained that the quotes were not attributed..." - not at all. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outsider to this particular dispute I must say that while there are severe NPOV issues, I don't see the BLP problem. The heading The footage provides an uncensored insider's view in major mainstream mosques before all of the comments strikes me as the most problematic, because it endourses the thesis of the documentary. This is an article about a documentary, not about the people who appear or are quoted in the documentary. Consequently, I would think there would be no problem with saying "Undercover Mosque generated controversy when it claimed Sheikh Al Faisal advocates for the killing of non-Muslims and quoted him as saying, 'You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically.'" Is that ok with everyone, and if not, why not specifically? --Selket 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what do you think about the following statements: "Sheikh Al Jibali advocates the beating of children", "Dr Bilal Philips sanctions marriage with pre-pubescent girls", "Sheikh Al Faisal advocates for the killing of non-Muslims". these are comments which have been inserted by editors, intending thereby to summarise the quotes; and the article was declaring these analyses as factual. in my eyes, this is a clear BLP violation because it implies they are encouraging legal infringement. even then, such commentary comes across defamatory. you can't use "quotes" to justify these OR conclusions, especially when the accused are complaining about how their words have been misinterpreted. your alternative seems reasonable on the condition that the programme explicitly forwards the specific claim. ITAQALLAH 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent attack on Passive smoking article

    Please help! User 69.141.30.12 keeps changing the consensual summary text of the Passive smoking article. In spite of reverts done by several editors, and complaints that this was considered vandalism, he/she keeps modifying the article as soon as its text is reverted to the consensual definition. He/she has done it about six times in a row, in a very short time span of a few days. Thanks for intervening to put a stop to this disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. The same scenario of repeated changes, on the same portion of the text, previously happened with BlowingSmoke. It may be suspected that BlowingSmoke and 69.141.30.12 are one and the same. Dessources 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is JzG's point of view, and not a consensus among the editors of this article. What matters, as far as writing the article on Passive smoking is what the experts and public health authorities think. It appears that they overwhelmingly agree that passive smoking causes death. The position of the public health authorities, worldwide, is expressed in the four documents referenced in the summary of Passive smoking, in particular in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which has been adopted unanimously by the representatives of 192 countries. Article 8. of the FCTC states clearly that passive smoking "causes death, disease and disability". The US Surgeon General offical position on the subject is "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." The position of the Californian Environment Protection Agency is similar. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the world leading authority on cancer, is no less categorical: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." We all know that lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer, with a very poor prognosis of survival. To suppress the word "causes" is to amputate the text of a key, fundamental element and to water down or minimize the true health effect of passive smoking, as evaluated by the public health experts of the world, without any justification.Dessources 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NuclearUmpf banned from Iraq War

    Just a quick note that I have banned NuclearUmpf from Iraq War per his probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults for edit warring. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:NuclearUmpf_reported_by_User:Alecmconroy_.28Result:_Page_ban.29. Dmcdevit·t 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    True, but why is is that your actions always seem to cut just one way?Proabivouac 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I understand your question, the probabtion limits imposed on them from an arbcom case aren't going to be imposed on someone else. --pgk 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an attempt to solve the dispute, that requires dispute resolution. Rather, it's to curb disruptive behavior. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lance Armstrong Vandalism

    The article on Lance Armstrong is a constant target for vandalism. Vandals are generally annonymous. Can an administrator please take the task to block it for editing by annonymous users Dixianity 10:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been semiprotected. Proto::► 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking by User:Friday

    I feel Im being stalked by Friday. He turns up almost everywhere I go now. Can anything be done about this as I feel threatenede by his constant attention to my every move. I have asked him to stop it a few times [117] but he just carries on.

    [118] [119] [120] [121] To which I replied with this trying to warn him off:[122] He then deleted one of my comments on a talk page. here:[123] More diffs to follow as I find them --Light current 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You give no actual evidence of stalking, just of two articles that apparently both of you have edited. Contribs logs are public for good reason, and even if he had looked through your contribs (which is not a given; you'd be amazed at the amount of stuff some people have on their watchlist) that isn't necessarily bad. For instance, in the Jester case, he appears to remove a non-standard header, in that most articles don't start with a "description" header; is that problematic? Is that an attempt to improveme of the encyclopedia, or an action made solely to annoy you? WP:FAITH suggests the former. >Radiant< 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hes following me alright. ill prove it. Since I put the hdg in, its obviosly to annoy me --Light current 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that depends. It is apparent that his removal of the heading did annoy you. However, it is also apparent that we do not in general employ such "description" headers. So it would appear that the intent was to bring the page in line with our standards. >Radiant< 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed. But why should he suddenly jump onto the Jester page like that? I did because someone accused me of acting like a court jester and I just wanted to get the right defn. I also tried to tidy the article whilst I was threr. Why did Friday then go to that page and revert my edit? And why has he suddenly become interested in Valve audio amplifiers?--Light current 12:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He reverted your edit because it took out the lead of the article. I would have done the same. Trebor 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok but why did he follow me there if not just to stalk?--Light current 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:Harassment:
    Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)
    The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.
    This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.
    Just following you isn't stalking. --Onorem 13:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But he is harrasing me. Has been for months. Ive tried to ingnore him becuase if I say anything , he blocks me>I have had to give up my important word on Audio amplifier pages becuase he has followed me there and started to criticise my posts.--Light current 13:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That last diff you provided also shows an uncivil comment you made. While I don't think removing comments from talk is correct, I think you shouldn't be making uncivil comments in the first place. Jeffpw 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admitted. But what has this to do with the current stalking problem?
    He's hardly the only person who has blocked you. He most likely looked over your contribution log, saw a change that was contrary to style guidelines and reverted. That is not stalking, nor is it disruptive. Trebor 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then what about his sudden appearnce on trhe Valve audio amplifier talk page?--Light current 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain how his comments there are disruptive. They look pretty reasonable to me. The fact that he may have got there through your contribution log isn't relevant if he isn't doing anything unreasonable while there. Trebor 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hes starting to cause trouble by interefering in a long running discussion between me and another difficult editor Tubnutdave. Ive given up oin those pages now as its just to stressful to deal with 2 awkward customes. So he has effectively disrupted the progreess on all those articles. --Light current 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I can't see any evidence of interfering. If you want to give up on them, that's your choice. Trebor 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you dont give a shit about anyone else causing actual disruption when Im accused of it almos frigging daily??--Light current 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me how is he is being disruptive. Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but youve got to ask yourself why has he suddenly taken an interest here when the situation was under control, and I had asked another Admin to advise me on proper action I should take on these pages.
    I'm sorry but you can't ban editors you dislike from editing certain pages. Unless he's doing something wrong, then what do you want to be done? Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People (like me) have been blocked for much less then Friday is doing. Im not asking for that. I would like Friday to be advised to stop folowing me around and harrasssing me . Thats all! --Light current 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not harrassment. Proto::► 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so bold a statement?--Light current 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Watching the contributions of a disruptive editor is not stalking or harrassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    watching is not. But commenting IS--Light current 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. If an editor is disruptive (which you often are) then it's perfectly legitimate. You could, of course, stop being disruptive and watch the problem solve itself... Guy (Help!) 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I disruptive within the WP defn?--Light current 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Circular argument!--Light current 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only if you can show these accusations are legitimate. An editor editing a few of the same pages as you isn't stalking or harassment. Trebor 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. Proto::► 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Were all dicks. It takes one to know one!-Light current 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How old are you? Trebor 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If thats not an impertinent Q, Im as old as you want me to be!--Light current 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?

    I'm actually at a loss as to what to do about Light current. He's obviously a very intelligent person, but his inability – feigned or genuine – to respond to any sort of criticism in a productive way is poisoning his ability to participate in Wikipedia.

    Gentle suggestions, polite reminders, and detailed explanations of why his behaviour is problematic have all failed, repeatedly. His response to any such advice is almost always rudeness (rm less than useless post, rm noise) often with a dash of I-dare-you-to-block-me-so-I-can-cry-admin-abuse-again thrown in for good measure: "Gonna block me again?" "Why so impatient my furry friend?".

    See also this thread on SCZenz's talk page, where (until SCZenz erased the insults and trolling) Light current was attempting to goad several admins into either another pointless argument or outright blocking by accusing us of 'fuzzy thinking and of course cowardice' for ignoring his taunts.

    A word of caution; Light current takes a very active hand in the maintenance of User talk:Light current (check out that history tab) and it may be rather difficult to follow the conversations there. While he does not alter anyone's signed remarks, he does freely rearrange comments and delete remarks that he doesn't like. While it is probably permissible for him to do so, it may give the casual reader a somewhat skewed perspective of what conversation actually took place.

    So, how do we get LC back on the straight and narrow? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't do anything. The ball is in LC's court. At some point, and probably soon, LC will run out of community patience and this will no longer be an issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Light Current twice deleted this thread, by the way. Thatcher131 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean ADMINS will run out of patience? I didnyt know that Admins represented the whole community; comprising as they do only about 0.1% of it!--Light current 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying there are other users who would think differently? I would love to hear from them. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want a non-admin view, I would say that judging by that block log it really is only a matter of time. Anyone with a block history like that needs to have a very serious rethink of their conduct here. Moreschi Deletion! 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and who is the cuase of the long block log. Not me, but erroeous Admins who dont know the blocking policy!--Light current 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's your problem right there: anyone who has attracted as much criticism and comment as you have and still believes that the problem is other people is headed for trouble. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldnt be an A****n by any chance would you?--Light current 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very unlikely that so many admins were wrong about you so many times, is it even a little possible that you may have earned a few of those blocks? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes about two. Where I was very offensive to some editors. All the others have been setups and well outside blocking policy.--Light current 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since persuasion hasn't worked, the remaining option is coercion. Various forms of coercion are available, such as civility parole, revert parole and general probation. They could conceivably be applied by community (admin) consensus, but I'm sure Light Current would not respect that. So that leaves us with arbitration, which can apply those coercive remedies. Arbitration would also give Light Current a chance to contest the blocks he thinks were inappropriate. I'm not sure that the case wouldn't turn into a train wreck, but I don't see the (admin) community being able to apply any useful remedies, short of a permanent ban, which seems much too drastic at this point. Thatcher131 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we have some unbiased non admin comment here please?--Light current 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification requested, are you suggesting that all admins are biased against you? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sure not all are. Only the ones whove blocked me plus SCZ (who hasnt yet -I dont think so anyway)Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, you said just a few lines up that two of the blocks were justified. So are the admins who justifiably blocked you biased against you?? Trebor 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is clear-cut, Thatcher. Whatever we decide to do, including community sanctions, we should just do rather than using up ArbCom's time. -- SCZenz 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what trumped up charge are you going to use this time?Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that you have enough community support for an escalating series of blocks to enforce a civility parole or probation, LC still has the option of appealing to arbcom. Something tells me that he won't meekly accept the judgement of the "community" here, so it will end up there one way or the other. Thatcher131 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If Light current appeals to ArbCom, that is fine; they will take up the case if they think it's worth their time, or let the community's decision stand if it looks ok to them. I'd rather let the arbitrators judge what they should pursue than use them as a crutch for things we can handle ourselves. -- SCZenz 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be assuming that admin comments are biased, LC; that in itself is an assumption of bad faith. Ok, here's a non-admin observation. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since November 6, when you dumped an off-topic debate onto Talk:Saddam Hussein. I reverted it; you reinstated it. I went to your talk page to explain to you why I was deleting it. Your response was aggressively argumentative. I've been looking in on your talk page from time to time since then, and I'm at a loss to understand the situation. It literally does not seem to ever occur to you that you might be wrong and that someone else might have a valid point. What I see here is a textbook case of exhausting the community's patience. It might help you to voluntarily take yourself away from Wikipedia for a week or two to get some perspective. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean ;
    Please read the RD rules. Discuusion should be moved to the approprate page. is aggressively argumentaive? Howzat?--Light current 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the whole thread, please, and don't think of this as a debate in which you are trying to score points. Think of it as an adult conversation in which the community is trying to show you how you are repeatedly going wrong. A few points to consider about that particular situation: What makes you think that everyone on Wikipedia knows what "RD" means? And what made you so utterly sure of your position that you continued to argue it after I removed the thread dump twice, then repeatedly explained to you that off-topic talk page postings could and should be deleted? You were so focused on your perspective (moving a thread from the reference desk) that you found it literally impossible to consider that the person you were talking to might have a valid point. It still does not seem to occur to you. Even now, you appear to be trying to score debating points, as opposed to considering what I'm telling you with an open mind. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Another non-admin opinion here: I agree with Jim Douglas above. From my observations (reading here and other boards, as well as watching the reference desk debates), it seems that LC obviously perceives a conflict with a number of admins sparked from the reference desk concerns, and when challenged on those conflicts immediately goes on the defensive. I personally find his responses to many of the comments that people make regarding his actions to be rather unnecessarily argumentative, even when people are trying to offer positive assistance, and would agree that he could do well to take some time and think about the situation before continuing in that fashion. Barring that, arbitration may be the next necessary step to clear this up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    THe 'solution' is simple. People back off! I back off. We all live happily ever after!--Light current 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH maybe we need something that has been suggested before: an RfC. I wasnt keen on it before, but I think it may give a broader picture of feelings pro and anti. So if anyone wants to start one, be my guest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs) 11:58, February 2, 2007
    I would hope an RFC would be unnecessary, but you are able to open one on yourself if you so choose, Light current. In fact it would be a sign of good faith in the community's ability to police itself if you did so, since you seem to believe that the administrators are biased against you. I believe that you are intelligent enough to see that what you are doing is at times disruptive and rules lawyering without an RFC, but it's up to you (or some other user) to take that step if necessary. -- nae'blis 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My non admin opionion is that for some of the blocks I would not have blocked as soon. However, given the repeating cycles of bahviour the blocks were probably inevitable. No one action leads to these blocks but rather a persistent nipping at the heels. Such behaviour becomes less and less tolerable as time marches on. It is certainly disruptive as seen by the reams of discussion devoted to general behavior on the ref desk (admittedly not all due to LC). LC is always looking for loop holes in the rules. The problem is that in wikipedia the rules are interpreted but not necessarily literally. This seems to be a lesson that LC refuses to learn. Another lesson that seems to not sink in is that persisient niggling is a culmulative offense. The slate is not clean after each block but rather patterns of editing are acted on to prevent further disruption. In LC's case the patterns are so clear that he is no longer has the benefit of the doubt given to other editors. Yet, he seems to think he should be treated as a newbie for each new interaction despite his huge block log and masses of experience here it wikipedia (>30,000 edits). To say that LC does not adapt to the wikipedia environment would be an understatement. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Open a frigging RfC on me. I demand it! Then ALL the shit can be brought into view! ¬Light current 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page on Humans destroyed

    Hi,

    Someone has just replaced the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human. It now shows the childish sentence: BOYS HAFF A PENIX, GURLS HAFF TEH VAGIN!

    Check it out.

    regards, mark Stikvoort.

    Already reverted. Will give user more info via talk off this page. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Reba episodes Vandalism

    The page listing the episodes of the sitcom Reba was recently vandalized by Metallicaman2112. Accoring to his profile, he has made numerous edits of the same nature and has been repeatedly warned against doing so.Can an administrator please take the task to block him from Wikipedia 8:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpryr (talk • contribs)

    He was blocked yesterday for disruptive edits. --Onorem 13:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted note at User:Drpryr's talk page directing him to WP:AIV for the future. Pedro1999a |  Talk  13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review of NYkid0709

    I have blocked NYkid0709 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely. He has continuously since his arrival made changes that appear to be against consensus (reverted by several different editors, and resulting in his first block for 3RR). He doesn't appear to respond to any attempts to communicate, and is a likely sockpuppet of DeathSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) based on the contribution history [124].

    I don't necessarily intend for this block to be infinite, but as his first behavior after being blocked for the same changes a few days ago was to come back and make the same exact changes I feel some paradigm shift needs to occur to allow this editor to continue.

    As with all my actions, if someone feels that they can get through to NYkid0709 you are welcome to shorten or lift the block. Syrthiss 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block: single purpose account, probably a sockpuppet, unresponsive to attempts to communicate, continued the same tendentious editing that got the account blocked as soon as the block was lifted. If NYkid0709 truly does want to contribute, he can explain why on his talk page. Proto::► 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Birdz

    Can someone please delete this template? It was created solely to vandalize the FA. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Mel Etitis

    Repeatedly adding a copyright violation image to Mika (singer) in violation of WP:3RR. The image in question has been tagged as "Replaceable Fair Use" (in violation of FUC#1) and is in violation of FUC#10 (has no rationale). According to WP:COPYVIO "the infringing content should be removed". The template {{rfu-c}} is an optional template for inviting further discussion. It describes neither an official procedure nor policy. The user has not made any objection to the image being tagged as replaceable. It is suggested that his edit warring is simply to make a WP:POINT, as the image will be speedy-deleted within 24 hours anyway. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been protected. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the standard template on the image and the standard template on the article give time for editors to respond; ed g2s has been removing the image from the article despite both temnplates being in place. As there is no urgency involved, it's impossible to see why he should (be allowed to) do so. I've already raised this further up the page.
    Still, I see that his aggressive over-eager approach, including misleading edit summaries, is going to be condoned again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have repeatedly used administrator tools to rollback ed's edits; please do not use the tools for purposes other than they have been authorised for. Please consult what WP:FU states, and the involved parties can reach an amicable resolution which is consistent with the policies and the copyright laws. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If {{rfu-c}} should not be used or misrepresents policy, it should be TFD'd instead of edit warring over its use. I personally think the template makes sense, and we should keep something on the page with or instead of the image to advertise that people should try and replace the image with a free one. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are talk page notices for requesting images ({{reqphoto}}). One could have a small notice on the article I suppose, but we don't use unfree material as a placeholder for free content (to draw an analogy to text, we don't use EB articles to pad out stubs). ed g2s • talk 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to edit war as an admin, at least don't use the rollback button. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins need to set higher standards. /me doles out some more sanctimonious bullshit:) — Nearly Headless Nick 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of nonsense prevalent about the rollback button; it provides at least as much information in the edit summary as most bots and pop-ups, more than some, and is only slightly more convenient. If I've explained my revert already, then I don't see the need to repeat it every time I make it again (my approach is surely preferable to that of ed g2s, who gives different reasons each time, at least one of which is simply false). There's also a repeated implication or even statement as here that the use of rollback is only authorised for certain situations; that was certainly not part of any policy or even guideline when I becasme an admin; has it been added somewhere since?

    With regard to this issue, no-one placed the image there as a placeholder; an editor had placed it there in good faith. If it has eventually to be removed, what on Earth is the objection to doing so in a measured way, placing the relevant templates, and keeping to the deadlines that they provide? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This big difference is that it is an admin tool. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, turn the question around: if there's not a snowball's chance in hell that somebody will actually come up with a valid fair-use rationale, what's the point in insisting on the deadline and repeatedly putting the image back in again? It only creates more work for the admin who will in the end have to do the deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    rfu-c is a template created out of the suggestion of one user. As I have explained repeatedly - it is neither an official procedure - nor does it describe an official policy. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I guess it makes good sense to have it in borderline cases where there's actual room for disagreement. The seven-days period, however, actually is policy, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual policy is 48 hours. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one lame edit war. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic rollback summaries are fscking fast and there is a reason why they aren't provided to regular users. You should not use rollback tool to revert other user(s)' edits while in content dispute with them. They are only meant for reverting vandalism and other means of WP:POINTmongering by WP:SPA trolls or under special circumstances like reverting instances that violate WP:CANVASS and WP:SPAM. Our policies are descriptive and should not be taken in a normative manner. This image should not be used on Wikipedia as it goes explicitly against WP:FU. The subject of the picture is a living entity and hence his picture is replaceable. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes, that's what people often say; now, can you point to the policy (or even a guideline) that backs up your claim about what rollback should and shouldn't be used for? (And, again, this peculiar fantasy-world notion of "replaceable"? How? What do you suggest that editors do to replace it? Start stalking actors, singers, etc, to get photos? Write and arrange a modelling session?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my understanding, what people are supposed to do is to write to the agency and ask for an explicit realease under a free license. Which in the case of celebrities they actually have pretty good chances to obtain, because these guys have an interest in having their images here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mel, if you disagree with Wikipeida's current fair use policy, then you should probably take this up at the appropriate talk page to discuss changes to the policy. Proto::► 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't it a bit ridiculous to complain about 3RR in regard to an article on which you have violated 3RR as well (and violated it first, from what I can tell)? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My mistake, it seems that neither of you violated 3RR. So your original accusation of 3RR would be a false one. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mel, it is the rule against edit warring that is the problem. You took a regular user violation and used admin tools with it. I am not trying to hammer this in or anything, just clarifying my objection(edit warring is bad, but using admin tools to do it is worse). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although of course he shouldn't be edit warring, Mel is pretty much correct regarding the rollback button. There have been a few attempts to make a policy/guideline to restrict usage of the rollback button (e.g. to vandalism reverts), but those have not met consensus. There appear to be some people that assume that such a policy/guideline exists anyway. >Radiant< 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gustav Klimt

    Could someone please undo the latest vandalism on Gustav Klimt. I'd do it myself but apparently there's a blacklisted hyperlink that has nothing to do with the vandalism on the page and I can't verify that link from my current IP so grateful if someone else might. MLA 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I went ahead and reverted it but where I am, i would rather not chase external links (blacklisted or what not). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lysdexia

    69.238.129.55 (talk · contribs) signs as "-lysdexia (still wrongly banned)" [125]. So technically all edits should be reverted? I know the name but I'm not familiar with the deeper history of this user. How should this be handled? Femto 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NisarKand

    Somebody might want to have a look at this: [126], and act accordingly. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked. If there was some way of blocking for longer than infinity, consider that to be the case. Proto::► 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. You just told him that after infinity has expired, he's welcome to come back [127]. Wonder if we will still be around then. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I plan to be :) Um, yes, that notice didn't make sense. Fixed now. He's still blocked until one day after the crack of doom. I don't think I've ever seen such a comment pack so much misplaced bile and hatred into one neat and tidy paragraph. Proto::► 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With your life expectancy, you don’t need that to live until the end of infinity. —xyzzyn 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, if you add the autoblock to the indefinite block, it's infinity plus 24 hours. :) Femto 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks of User:193.219.28.146

    This IP was blocked three times in a row because of adding one, short, polite comment on Talk:Ass to mouth. I believe blocks of this IP were unjust, because:

    Anyone looking into this may wish to take a look at the long conversation on his talk page before drawing conclusions. He was blocked for disruption due to re-adding a non-constructive and irrelevant comment about wikipedia in general regardless of the general consensus that such things are not appropriate on talk pages per the opening para of WP:TALK Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.-Localzuk(talk) 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look through it, twice in fact (this issue was posted here a week ago, I think), and I'm not so sure about the blocks on the IP address, or whether the comment is really so out of line. The comment is the user's personal view on whether the article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia - that's a valid point for discussion, and obviously has been one in the past since the article was AfD'd. The comment is polite, to the point, and doesn't attack anyone, and I don't see it as outside of the limits placed by WP:TALK. What is the harm in allowing it to stand, responding to it if needed, and letting the matter come to a natural close? Anyway, this seems like a very tenuous reason to block an anon user. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a tenuous block as there are at least 5 editors who have agreed that it is not an acceptable thing to post. How does a generalised slating of wikipedia count as being discussion about how to improve an article? If the person thinks the article shouldn't be there then they should take it to AFD.
    The 5 of us do see it as being outside the limits placed by WP:TALK as it is simply his opinion about the quality of Wikipedia and doesn't in any way help improve the site or article.-Localzuk(talk) 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a generalized comment - it's about that article and whether it belongs on Wikipedia, which (again) is a perfectly legitimate topic for a talk-page discussion. Consensus, by the way, isn't used to determine whether comments should be deleted from talk pages; that's a matter of policy. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And policy is determined by consensus... Your point being? :) As I have said, the issue here is that the other editors and I think it isn't a constructive comment - it is an opinion and is against WP:TALK. So the actual issue is simply that the editor in question has repeatedly been asked not to do something and been blocked for doing just that.-Localzuk(talk) 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Username blocks, punitive?

    (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our username policy and choose another name)

    Anyone notice a paradox here? And this is what 90% of the usernameblocks look like, are we trying to bite people whose only crime is to pick a name that's too long, random, or non-latin?--172.164.122.67 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking account creation is a very new feature, and it's on by default. Presumably this is happening in error. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -- SCZenz 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those really shouldn't be set to ACB, unless it's something clearly vandalistic like an attack username (in which case the block is to prevent more attack usernames being created, and the block summary should be clearer). Besides, anon-only is a setting that only applies to IP blocks as far as I know (although I'm not sure, not being an admin); so if it's an anon-only block, how can it be for a username violation ('Sorry, your IP violates our username policies, please pick another IP...')? Are you sure you've reported that block message correctly? --ais523 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Check the block log, there are dozens of examples--172.164.122.67 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted, some of the blocking features are new. It appears that the blocking admins may inadvertently not be clicking the optimal combination of boxes in these cases; we (myself included if I've erred in this regard) should be more attentive to the particulars, especially since the standard username-block template specifically invites the user to create another account. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ACB probably shouldn't be on by default... I know I've nearly AC blocked before when I didn't intend to.--Isotope23 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Isotope23. Does anyone know if there's a centralized discussion somewhere or a bug request on this? Newyorkbrad 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a few edits to WP:USERNAME and WP:BP to reflect that ACB shouldn't be used if it's just an inappropriate username. People should please feel free to clarify the statements I've added. Infact, now I'm tidying up a really messily layed out section on WP:USERNAME that I just noticed when I went to add this change. --Deskana (request backup) 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A similar note at WP:RFC/NAME might be a good idea... WJBscribe 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some discretion is warranted here, though. If someone in good faith creates User:JesusSaves, having no idea that it is a violation of policy, preventing account creation would be silly. But if you see four usernames in a row, all of which comment about a particular administrator's mother, I can't see any reason not to prevent account creation. --BigDT 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to reflect such in my additions to WP:USERNAME and WP:BP. If you feel I didn't do well enough at it, please do add to my edits. --Deskana (request backup) 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking the current logs: TKD, Betacommand, Wiki alf, JLaTondre, Viridae, Glen S, and Sarah Ewart (this one was autoblock-enabled, and didn't say 'choose another name') did username ACB blocks (DragonflySixtyseven did an ACB block but noticed and corrected it, which seems to imply that this is purely a mistake and not intentional behaviour); HighInBC, NawlinWiki, DragonflySixtyseven, Edgar181, and Shreshth91 turned ACB off for username blocks. So it's a real problem, presumably usually due to admins not noticing that the ACB option is on by default. --ais523 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Presumably the solution then is to not turn on potentially destructive new features by default, leaving admins to enable account blocking when warranted, rather than blanketing them for everyone who misses a new checkbox. Blocking new accounts indefinitely is extreme overkill in any case but community banned static IPs, I'd think. -- nae'blis 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I disable AC with most of my username blocks as 99.8% of them are vandals or spammers,

    just take a look

    • ScottFarrellIsGay
    • Rogerfuckingwaters
    • Pencil lead productions
    • Instant Vandalism
    • Vandals Incorporated
    • Commforus.com
    • Jesussavesyou
    • Fuckbag2
    • Poopfartbutt
    • Poopfartassshit
    • Big gay john
    • Shanel KKK
    • Ginandtacos.com
    • Cainproductions
    • Asdfkfjkjef12345
    • ANDREWISGAY 911
    • Www.merenguetravel.com
    • $jTj$ 54
    • Greenpeace123456789
    • Braedon5555555555555555555555555555
    • Fuckyou2bitch
    • POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP ON WHEELS
    • Tityfucker
    • Please ban Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia
    • Newyorkbrad is really boring
    • Probably Pooping
    • Newyorkbrad is a sockpuppet of Lucky 6.9
    • Blink182Suck
    • Does Antandrus wear bikinis?
    • Newyorkbrad & Aecis are gay rentboys on wheels!
    • Newyorkbrad is a child sex offender!
    • TEEN TITANS SUCKS
    • Getreality
    • Colbeagleman24
    • ZOMGlulZ!!!!eleven
    • Sockpuppet of fredguy
    • Sexy fuck
    • Bitchinwizardhat
    • Adolf666
    • Assfartguy
    • Otisbadass
    • Stickskills.com
    • Whoisdougieveney.com

    yes I give them all the same usernameblock message as I dont want to say "fuck off vandal" or "go to hell spammer" I instead give them a polite message. can anyone argue with that? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, so what did Kclasdf1 (talk · contribs), Pencil lead productions (talk · contribs), Hi1234567890 (talk · contribs), Fungilover (talk · contribs), SoftwareWriterNYC (talk · contribs), Nyc software writer (talk · contribs), Greenpeace123456789 (talk · contribs), Braedon5555555555555555555555555555 (talk · contribs) all do to deserve 'Account creation blocked'?--172.165.169.16 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in general, you need to make a decision on a case bu case basis, of the list you've given I would probably have unticked the box for a handful (assuming them to be just poor choices rather than malicious), though I'll admit I frequently forget (Last time I checked, I'm human so prone to such mistakes). Up until recently it wasn't an option, so the option for such people is the same as previously, post an unblock request. I don't think changing the default is a good idea, since if not ticked the other blocks on vandalism accounts etc. will not be as effective, since they'll just be able to create another account and carry on. --pgk 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I would rather have it such that as a blocking admin you have to actively and consciously elect to AC block. I'm not by any means trying to argue that AC blocks are unwarrented; some of the above examples are situations where an AC would be warrented on a username block and I know I've encountered other situations where AC blocking is warrented as well. It just seems there is more potential for harm by leaving it as a default option and having it applied where perhaps it is not warrented. Just an opinion.--Isotope23 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being attacked on edit summaries, talk pages and image pages

    Hello, I need some help in communicating with User:Deathrocker. He is recently following an annoying pattern of attacking me in his edit summaries.

    We have been editing the same image description pages, and articles using the corresponding images, after I noticed that some of the images he uploaded had some problems, like absence of source info, wrong licensing (tagged as cc-by, but actually cc-nc-by on source), or faillure to comply with the fair use unrepeatability criteria.

    I understand dealing with divergent opinions is part of Wikipedia editing. What I'm asking for help here is with the user's attacks towards me (and towards others, indeed) in his edit summaries (and talk pages, and image description pages).

    Following is a list of diffs showing the kind of behaviour that I wish User:Deathrocker to avoid:

    • readds an unsourced image to an article an calls me a troll [128]
    • reverts a correction on an image's licensing, calling the correction an act of "trlling" [129]
    • Reverts an image removal (due to copyvio suspect) and calls the removal a "image vandalism" [130]
    • calls me a "notorious image vandal " while readding an image to an article. [131]
    • removes some image warnings from his talk page (not necessarily a problem in itself) calling the warnings "automated trolling by virg badal" [132]
    • reverts a correction on the image licensing, calling the correction "simple vandalism" and "image terrorism" [133]
    • readds an unsourced image and calls me a "image terrorist" doing "simple vandalism" [134]
    • removes a deletion tag (instead of adding a 'dispute' tag) from an image and calls me a vandal, sockpuppet and wiki-stalker; [135]
    • implies User:Mosmof is a sock puppet under my control, and calls me/he/us a stalker "leaving crap" on his user page. [136]
    • suggest I should get a hobbie or a girlfriend (not that this would be a bad idea, but considering the context, it's hard to take that as a construtive advice) [137]

    I've then left him a message asking him to avoid promoting the use of unsourced images and also to avoid calling me a vandal/stalker/puppetmaster. He replied still insisting in his sock-puppet/stalking/trolling theory. I replied one last time urging him to quit the accusations, and explaining him about the user contributions feature.

    I hope someone could help me make this user stop attacking me and concentrate his efforts in contributing with his valuable editions to Wikipedia.

    Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to verify that I am in fact, not Abu's sockpuppet, and a simple IP check should prove that. And while the user claims to archive old messages, he appears to be deleting legitimate discussions, 3RR warnings and attempts to explain my actions, referring to them all as spam. [138][139]

    - Mosmof 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User will be blocked for 48hrs for multiple personal attacks. User has been warned in the past about this kind of behavior.--Jersey Devil 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip-india Redirects

    User:Wikiga and User:59.92.136.29 are redirecting the above article to Digit (magazine). I can't find any proof of either magazine taking over the other. The above captioned editors have not provided any proof concerning the need for a redirect. Another revision by me puts me into Three Revert Rule territory. Please advise? --SilverhandTalk 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFCU maybe? Googling, I can't find any support for the "claim". Presumably, the IPs and the user are the same ... perhaps checkuser could determine if a 3RR block is in order? --BigDT 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be a good idea. Uncle G has placed a sprotect on it, but I don't think that will stop Wikiga. I left a message on Uncle G's Talk Page concerning the situation. I may invite him over here once he replies for his opinion. --SilverhandTalk 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.219.28.146 disruption resumed after 1-week 3RR block

    After being blocked 3 times for 3RR violations, and just coming out of the latest 1 week block, User:193.219.28.146 has resumed adding unconstructive comments on Talk:Ass to mouth. He has promised on his talk page that he will continue to do so despite being blocked repeatedly. True to his word, he resumed immediately when the block was lifted. See User talk:193.219.28.146 for extensive discussions that don't seem to get through to him. Issues are WP:TALK (using talk pages to discuss content or value of Wikipedia rather than improving the article, and WP:POINT (disruption to make a point), as well as WP:3RR. =Axlq 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war on that comment deserves to be added to WP:LAME. --BigDT 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Because editors are trying to keep a talk page focussed on the task in hand? I don't understand how a generalised comment could be considered helpful.-Localzuk(talk) 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    VaughanWatch Sock

    Done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Speedster 619

    Speedster 619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just check his “contribs”. --Bender235 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's only vandalized articles twice in the last few months and has been warned for that. This seems like a straightforward vandal who should be properly warned and then reported to WP:AIV if he continues to vandalize after a level 4 warning. Thanks, Gwernol 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the proportion of vandalism to genuine edits, though (and you have to include things like page-creation vandalism, which doesn't appear in the contributions), he is obviously a problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attacks

    Hello. I would like to bring your attention to the talk page of the Azerbaijan article where several users (all of whom are probably the same person) continuously make personal attacks, even when told not to and told about Wikipedia NPA rules: [140] Notice how many times I have referred them to Wikipedia rules and asked them to stop with the attacks. I suspect that one reason for the attacks is so that they can avoid discussing the main issue. Typical comments include ones such as this: [141] Also note their false accusations. Looking at my contributions, you will not find one instance of POV pushing, original research, or removal of sourced information without good reason. However, I urge you to look at the contributions of these users (who, again, are most likely the same person) and notice their editing habits. This is the third time I have had to file a report, and now I ask for some punishment for their bahaviour. Here is what Wikipedia rules say:

    Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to be handled through the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

    Note, these attacks have been continuous, and I have tried both ignoring them and responding politely by referring them to Wikipedia rules and policies. Nothing has worked and they have shown the exact same pattern of hostility and personal attacks. This is the third time I have had to post here about such personal attacks. As per the paragraph above, this is disruptive editing.Azerbaijani 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks are not punitive. Sorry. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benio76

    I've just had an e-mail from Benio76 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been blocked indefinitely as a sock-puppet. He's given me pretty conclusive evidence of his identity (linking the e-mail account from which he contacted me, his Web page, his University in Italy, etc.). He explains that he shares an ADSL line with his housemate, of whom he's accused of being a sock-puppet (Olivierd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

    I must say, looking at the evidence he provides, and at the evidence of editing, the sock-puppet charge looks open to debate, at the very least. Is there any chance of reassessing this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no reason not to. We can block the IP but permit existing accounts. If this account behaves, let it edit. If it misbehaves block it. Even if it is a sock, if it behaves we've lost nothing.--Docg 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=105168931"