Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags [1] [2] [3] on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

User:Nadia Kittel

This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:User:Nadia Kittel's image uploads also seem quite suspicious. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I speedied a couple that were obvious copyvios. There's also a few with a claim that they're posted by permission that look like possible acceptable fair use images. I'll contact an admin re the Commons pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't auto-archive this quite yet... --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So how to move on in this affair? Geo-Loge 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks by User:Raul654

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Could someone please review the recent blocks (last half dozen, say - I haven't checked the older ones myself yet) made by User:Raul654 ([4]). He has repeatedly blocked IP addresses for prolonged periods following very small amounts of vandalism with very few if any warnings. Raul654 is one of our most experienced administrators, which makes this all the more concerning. WP:BLOCK says: "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That description definitely applies to at least some of Raul's recent blocks. I have discussed this with him on his talk page and, while acknowledging he may have overreacted is trying to come up with various excuses, none of which are particularly persuasive, and he still hasn't unblocked any of them. Am I overreacting, or are others equally concerned by this apparent "policy does not apply to me" attitude? --Tango 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd characterise the brief discussion on his talk as a "policy does not apply to me" attitude, though your own attitude seems to be a bit off (IMO). I haven't looked closely into the blocks, but as a general note the block stuff is often a guideline and a judgement call needs to be made, looking at individual blocks in isolation can miss patterns of vandalism the blocker may note (though Raul654 hasn't suggested this to be the case). --pgk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Raul is fine here; a lot of that vandalism was made to the main page, and he was just making sure they wouldn't do it again. The last thing we want is to give a person three chances to blank a main page FA - one of our key publicity points. I applaud Raul for having the correct mindset when it comes to TFA vandalism. — Deckiller 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That justification works fine for a 24 hour block, it doesn't work for a 1 week block, and certainly not for a 1 month block as some of Raul's blocks have been. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do look closely into the blocks. Take the block of User:129.67.128.222, for example. One edit, blanking the day's featured article, is the only thing in the IP's contribs, and Raul blocked it for a week with no warnings. As I said on his talk page, it being the featured article may justify not issuing a warning first, but it doesn't justify a longer block than 24 hours (the article is only featured for that long, for a start). It's not the discussion on his talk page that suggests his attitude, it's his logs - policy says one thing, he's done the other and apparently has no intention of changing his ways. I can't see any reason for him doing that unless he feels above policy. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP given looks static to me, it's an Oxford Uni IP blanking a featured article about an Oxford Uni College. Policy doesn't give absolutes, but even if I agree it seems a long block one on it's own doesn't seem to indicate a huge problem. I'd have to look through mutiple, filter out ones where similar vandalism is going on and so maybe connected, filter out any where there is suspected "sockpuppetry" (I'll assume Raul marks those resulting from his checkuser privileges as such). I'm not sure how you can divine an attitude from looking at a block log. What I can see from the dicussion is Raul admit an overreaction, you following up with some rather patronising comments a bit more discussion where Raul doesn't appear to be being obstructive and again your comments seem far from constructive in trying to reach a reasonable conclusion. --pgk 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse blocks • This post seems a bit vexatious. And the "I suggest you explain yourself there" line was not very nice. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your endorsement, please? If you are endorsing blocks which go against policy you must have a specific reason. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated badgering of Raul, and now it seems anyone who disagrees with your position, kind of justifies why I say this post is vexatious, methinks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to explain that, I asked you to explain your endorsement. --Tango 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust Raul's judgment; and your badgering just reconfirms this for me. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  To quote the oft-repeated phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor." Tango is looking out for adherence to policy on blocking, not attacking Raul. Your comments, meanwhile, aren't doing anything but turning this into an argument - do we really need more of those around here? Picaroon 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also trust Raul's judgement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  And that's why admins get accused of being a cabal. All you have to do is click on the link I gave, check out of couple of the blocks and see what you think. Saying you trust his judgement doesn't help anybody. --Tango 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust his judgment too, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have a reasonbale explanation. Without prejudice, I went back over his recent blocks and made the list below. This list contains all of his blocks over the last two or so weeks. The bolded ones look, on the surface, like they could use additional explanation. I flagged those blocks that were either of a likely dynamic IP (in which case the block is useless) or where there was only one edit and no obvious reason to block. --BigDT 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 129.67.128.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only contribution was blanking Oriel College, IP part of a large block from Oxford University, so probably static
  • 71.31.47.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - only contribution was replacing Free speech zone with "Star Trek rocks, IP allocated to Alltel, so it might be a hotspot
  • 67.173.128.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - I don't see any non-vandalism edits from this IP, most are November and before, maps to Comcast, so almost certainly static
  • 217.41.28.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor) - IP requested unblock immediately after another user was blocked, almost certainly a static IP
  • 68.220.23.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Spamming) - three edits, all spam - IP is Bell South, though, which is probably dynamic
  • 72.254.8.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only edit was to blank Avatar: The Last Airbender
  • 75.21.241.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - I don't see any vandalism here at all ... it looks like this user was simply involved in a dispute and was discussing it on a talk page.
    • Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... Raul, he gave a reasonable explanation of his action in his edit summary and expanded upon it on the talk page. That wasn't anything remotely approaching vandalism. Four days later you came along, reverted it, and blocked him for a week. That was wrong on several levels... blocking without warning, calling a good faith content dispute vandalism, blocking someone you reverted, making a punitive block (four days after the fact it can't be described as preventative), and blocking for a week on a first 'infraction' (which actually wasn't). --CBD 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just looked at the segment that was removed. It was sourced by denverspiritualcommunity.org, therazor.org, and newshounds.us. Two of those are editorials that Some Guy On The Internet (tm) wrote and none of them are what I would call reliable. Jimbo himself has said that instead of slapping a "citation needed" tag on unsourced facts, we ought to remove it. One of the passages started off with, "It is unknown whether the number of supportive or critical letters is indicative ...". Well, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - our job isn't to guess what Bill O'Reilly's letter selection process might be. Unless I'm missing something, not only was this a good faith edit, but there's little question that it was the right edit. I have removed most of the passage that the IP removed. I apologize for my "vandalism". --BigDT 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • While that might be true of the first paragraph, you have conveniently ignored the fact that he removed *three* paragraphs, not one, and that the latter two were sourced to reliable sources (Media watchdog Mediamatters, and the documentary they produced, Outfoxed), and that those paragraphs should not have been removed. Raul654 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
            • He explained his removal in the edit summary. He had removed three paragraphs - I only removed two of them. I left in place the one about "Outfoxed" as it is the most meaningful and sourced of the three ... but even that is barely worth having in the article. That's an editorial decision that I don't see how anyone could be faulted for removing it. There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. If you have to argue about which paragraphs should have been removed, it's a content dispute, not vandalism. --BigDT 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
              • You removed one of the above paragraphs, not two.
              • There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. - Had you read the article before removing that information, you would have noticed that it says "O'Reilly disagrees with a common claim that he is a conservative, preferring to call himself a traditionalist and a populist." That cited information about his conservative leanings is there specifically because it refutes his laughably-hollow claim that he's an independent. And, in fact, that's subsantially the onus for the "Allegations of Bias" section, which this anon basically shredded. Raul654 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 60.241.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 24 hours (Harassment)
  • Nate1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite (Nothing but vandalism)
  • 72.10.105.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 6 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, probably a school. Maybe {{schoolblock}}?
  • 71.192.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 3 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, static IP
  • 68.88.7.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit was a partial section blanking of DNA - given where the text is cut off, it may have even been accidental, IP is SBC and possibly dynamic
  • 74.36.76.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit is blanking DNA, IP is Frontier Communications, so probably static
  • 217.42.228.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, but IP is dial up and likely dynamic
  • 70.117.205.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Page blanking - from Road Runner, which is static, I think
  • 65.95.167.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, ISP is Bell Canada, so I have no idea if that's static
  • 142.167.172.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, static IP
  • 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - blocked on February 27, after this whole mess started - this IP has exactly two edits [5] and [6]. One was to remove a statement about Israel's casualties in proportion to the US's experience in Vietnam and another was to say that the statement was misleading. There's no good reason for the statement to be there - this isn't Americacyclopedia so we don't need to compare things to America. The second edit wasn't a spectacular edit, but it certainly wasn't vandalism - it was a newbie making a newbie mistake.
    • This summary is wrong on both counts. The block was for 48 hours, and the second edit wasn't POV, it was flatly, factually incorrect (it removed a citation and changed the sentence to say the exact opposite of what it had previously said). This is subtle vandalism by definition. Raul654 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You have to realize that Raul is a checkuser, and in many cases, you get a user vandalizing TFA from a ton of sleeper socks. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine and that's a reasonable explanation ... but if that's the case, it should be noted as a {{checkuserblock}} so that if the vandal later comes along and claims that their IP is dynamic, an admin won't unblock, not realizing that there was a checkuser reason for the block. --BigDT 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The blocks I'm questioning have block reasons like "vandalism" despite the blocks clearly being for something more than that (assuming they are justifiable blocks). If Raul has a good reason for the blocks, he should be including it in his block reason - that's what the box is there for. --Tango 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I block someone based on checkuser results, I note that either explicitly or implicitly (if I state it's a sockpuppet of a certain user, that can be taken as implicit checkuser). One of these blocks was based on checkuser ("Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor"), the rest were not. Nor, for that matter, has there been any evidence presented here that any of them were in error. I stand by every one of them, and nobody here has presented a scintilla of evidence that these users were engaged in anything but the misdeeds I noted in the block summary. Raul654 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good grief, even after this whole mess started, he blocked another IP - 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs) who made exactly two edits, both in good faith (albeit maybe not good edits, but definitely in good faith), with no warning. --BigDT 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as vandalism in the block summary, too. I checked the diffs, and though I don't agree with the edits, it's not like he put a penis picture in the middle of the article. just a typical POV edit that should have been reverted and the user welcomed to Wiki and given the generic letter referring to policies. ~I notice it was a FA, and wonder if Raul is just very protective of those articles. Jeffpw 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that seems over the top. They looked like good faith edits to me, and certainly deserving of a note/warning first. Trebor 15:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing a cited sentence to say the exact opposite of what it previously said is vandalism. And it's not just ordinary vandalism, it's vandalism that's particularly difficult to spot - aka, subtle vandalism, and that's the kind that needs to be dealt with most harshly. That sentence is not POV, it's flatly, factually wrong. So while BigDT is free to continue looking over my blocks with a fine tooth comb, in the future he should avoid jumping to the defense of subtle vandals. Raul654 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the edit. The original sentence IS misleading... it's a poorly worded statistical shell game. What it really means is that Israel suffered a higher average 'casualties per day' over the course of three weeks than the US did over the course of ten years in Vietnam. Hardly surprising given that those ten years weren't intense fighting every day. If you don't parse the 'proportionately' properly the sentence seems to say, "Israel suffered three times as many casualties in 3 weeks of fighting as the United States did during almost a decade of fighting in Vietnam"... which would be grossly incorrect. The sentence is POV through statistical misrepresentation. You could as easily say, 'Proportionately, Israel suffered only a third of the casualties in those three weeks as the United States did on the worst day of fighting in Vietnam'... just as 'true' and just as obviously slanted to express a particular POV. It would be better to just cite how many Israelis were killed (per day or in total) and leave off the statistically biased comparisons entirely. --CBD 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wildly wrong on what the sentence means. The sentence is saying that if you take the casualties Israel suffered in the war (which lasted 3 weeks) and divide by the population, you get a value very close to what you get if you take the casualties suffered by the US in the Vietnam war (which lasted ~10 years) and divide by the US population. Raul654 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If so, then the fact that the sentence says nothing about 'total population figures' rather proves the point about it being poorly worded and misleading... and it remains a statistical shell game. The US population is roughly 42 times that of Israel... so if Israel lost one soldier and the US lost 14 then 'by proportion of population' Israel lost three times as many. --CBD 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The total casualty figures are given in the warbox at the very beginning of the article. But in talking about war wariness and such, absolute numbers like that are not terribly meaningful unless you know either the total population they relate to, or the proportion. So, to rebuff your point, it's not a shell game, it's EXACTLY how you are supposed measure the impact of a war. That's exactly how the cited sources DOES measure it. And the novel aspect of that sentence is that to convey that Israel suffered as many casualties per capita in three weeks what the US suffered in ten years, which is extremely relavant to describing reaction to the war. Furthermore, changing the sentence to say the opposite is not biased, it's simply objectively wrong. Raul654 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is quite poorly worded. Regardless....I'm struggling to get my head around how User:68.253.217.64's edits can reasonably be described as vandalism at all, let lone vandalism so severe and blatant as to merit an immediate 48 hour block without any warning...initially he removed the entire sentence (whilst leaving the bit about high Israeli casualties), was then reverted, and possibly intended the second edit as some sort of compromise. At the very least, this block is really very harsh....unless Raul654 was privy to some line of evidence (e.g. as to previous vandal edits) that is not generally obvious? Badgerpatrol 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism for the same reason it's vandalism to go to the world war II article and change it to say Germany won - e.g, changing objectively true facts to false ones. And in this case, it's hard enough to spot as to qualify as subtle vandalism. Raul654 15:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Raul654 should cut this out. We already have a good-sized group of vandal fighters who do the job well. We don't need someone else entirely doling out week-long blocks for single incidents. Ashibaka (tock) 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this all disturbing. Almost more disturbing is the fact that some people seem to think that Raul's long standing here would somehow exempt him from following established procedures for warning, blocking and block length. Raul's comment on his talk page in response to Tango "I really don't like people vandalizing my artilces" indicates a conflict of interest in applying his admin actions in at least some of these cases. I don't think this is something to just give a pass on and I commend Tango for persuing this despite the potential backlash. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest page you cite indicates 4 possible avenues:

• avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
• avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
• avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality,
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

My reverts to free speech zone (and, for that matter, the many other edits I've made to that article, given that I wrote most of it) falls into none of these categories. It's not even conceivable, unless I have some real life connection to them, which I do not. Raul654 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a wikilawyering response if I've ever heard one. Fine, the COI page is about editing, not admin actions. You failed to address the conflict of interest in using you admin functions to block accounts against the blocking policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(A) It's not a wiki-lawyering response - it's me refuting a flatly incorrect accusation against my editing that should not have been made in the first place.

(B) I will respond to allegations when someone makes one that's actually valid. Consider the latest one - an anon vandalizes an article to remove a cited statement, I revert, he comes back and changes it to say the exact opposite (aka, subtle vandalism), I revert and block him. Then I have to come here to argue with people who apparently (a) cannot tell the difference between a biased edit and one that is objectively wrong, and (b) are more concerned with the letter of the blocking policy than making sure our articles stay factually correct. Raul654 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where you see subtle vandalism, I see a newbie making a newbie making a newbie mistake. He made exactly two edits. With no message on his/her talk page before or after the fact, you blocked him/her for a week. Even if we were to presuppose that the edit was not in good faith, a message to his/her talk page could have opened the door to a possible discussion on the subject. Any time you encounter someone with a redlinked talk page, it's important to engage that user. If they are making good faith edits, {{welcome}} them. If you speedy an article they created in good faith, give them {{firstarticle}}. If you revert them and it isn't obvious vandalism, use an appropriate template like {{test}}, {{Uw-delete1}}, etc. The whole idea of WP:AGF is that we give people the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarilly. --BigDT 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now one of the top ten largest sites in the world. Disruptive trolls know exactly what they are doing, and they play it like a game because we allow them to. It flat out disgusts me when I see an administrator, someone who should be setting an example for others, tell someone off for reporting an occurence of blatant vandalism to WP:AIV because the vandal hasn't been "warned enough" for adding what is generally libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material to one of our articles. Raul654 did the right thing here, and troublemakers who intentionally vandalize the wiki in such a manner need to be shown the door immediately. RFerreira 06:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? I don't think I've editing AIV in a month. At any rate, we're not talking about "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material". There are two distinct issues that I raised, both of which are unrelated to your point. (1) Blocking of dynamic IP addresses for a week is unhelpful. (2) Blocking anyone when the edits might not have been vandalism is unhelpful. If someone adds "libellous, racist, or otherwise highly offensive material" to an article, don't expect me to shed tears when they are blocked without warning. But that's a red herring here - the blocks in question involve nothing of the sort. --BigDT 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had a dollar every time another admin gave the third degree to someone who filed a completely valid report to WP:AIV for the reasons cited above, well, lets just say I would have a lot of dollars. As to the dynamic IP address issue, I also disagree. There is a difference, a huge difference, between a dynamic address assigned to a DSL subscriber versus a dial-up modem user. Anyone who possesses and makes use of the block function should know this, but based on my own observations this is clearly not the case. RFerreira 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard

This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name [7], despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this [8] (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite [9]. I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this [10]. Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yuvraj Singh includes a link to a previous discussion at WT:CRIC about this issue where Gene was the sole voice arguing for mandatory classification for last name, whereas everybody else felt that it was correct to use whatever the main usage of the term was. That archive also shows that the examples of Indian Sikhs and Muslims who are indexed by first name are noted. When the switch was made to the Yuvraj entry, there was a reminder on the talk page. After another user came and fixed up typos and grammar in late 2006, they weren't aware of the way Yuvraj is categorised, so when I switched it back to Y, I left an invisible comment [11] in late December. Since then, Gene has reverted the article four times, despite the article having a note and the talk page having a note, for a total of six reverts, whereas other articles such as Harbhajan Singh and Maninder Singh, which do not have a reminder notice, have been less frequently targeted. As for Gene's comments that my failure to revert all his edits shows that I have a rationale problem; this is is incorrect - I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly, per the previous discussions. Robin Singh and VRV Singh are not Sikhs and are common referred to as Singh, while the others are referred to by first name. As for Shah Nylchand and any others, the same applies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note carefully: I was the last voice addressing the issue on that talk page, and still am a month and a half later. Neither User:Blnguyen nor any other editor has addressed the points I raised there, in my only comment there.

Note more carefully that Blnguyen misrepresented what the previous link dealt with:

1. It dealt specifically with cricketers from Pakistan, from Bangladesh, and from the United Arab Emirates—not with cricketers from India.
2. It dealt with indexing all people in the categories related to cricketers from those countries by first name, not some haphazard mish-mash with some indexed by first name and some indexed by last name as Blnguyen proposes.
3. It specifically dealt only with the cricket categories related to those countries, not to categories for cricket in other countries for people who may have played in more than one place, not for categories for people also notable as politicians or writers or whatever, not for the birth and death and living categories.
4. What Blnguyen describes here, in his "I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly" statement, is a category determination that depends on the establishment of a factual foundation.

1. Even if that were the rule of our guidelines, it would require he establishment of that fact on an individual, case-by-case basis for each person, by proper citation to reliable sources, and not be based on WP:NOR by Blnguyen or any other editor.
2. Blnguyen has not met the burden of establishing this fact in any single case. He has not even attempted to do so.

Discussions on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people have dealt with the guideline there ("normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system") by pointing out that we should not expect to readers to know whether a person is of Belgian heritage or Dutch heritage or German heritage or American heritage whatever, in order to figure out how his or her name will be sorted in categories. It is even more ludicrous to expect that readers should know a person's religion in order to know how his or her name will be sorted in categories.

I am taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people Gene Nygaard 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not owning any article. I am the principal author of the Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh article but there is little activity on the main body that is ever contested. It's only the indexing which is contested, and I'm not the lone ranger by any means. The DR occurred last year. It is up to Gene to try and change the consensus established last year in a discussion in which he partook. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I am not. It is you who is trying to change that consensus. Address the points I made above: 1) That consensus dealt with cricketers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and UAE, not those from India, 2) That consensus involved indexing ALL people in the cricket categories for those countries by first name, and 3) that consensus involved only cricket categories for those three countries. Gene Nygaard 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, that supposed consensus is not mentioned at all on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket page. There is no clear statement of what it is, so that editors can follow it, and more improtantly so that it could be discussed and fine-tuned as necessary. That year-old consensus is not on the current talk page there, either. Rather, it is hidden away in at least two, perhaps three different archive sections for that talk page. Nobody has any notice whatsoever that it exists. It isn't, as far as I know, mentioned on any category page or category talk page--though I've not checked them in detail for that, just a sampling shows that it is not mentioned on Category:Pakistani Test cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Bengladeshi cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Cricketers by nationality or its talk page, even though that does have a detailed discussion of "in cricket terms, the United Kingdom and Great Britain do not exist". Gene Nygaard 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train ^{take the} 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on my talk page, and here as well, that it was indeed imposed punitively.

Furthermore, it was User:Blnguyen who was repeatedly undoing my edits, without discussion, violating the guidelines on the subject. The changes were intentionally added in the form of a sort key, not an oversight that involved not changing the default from the article's name. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See wiktionary:slap on the wrist. Gene Nygaard 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat - the block was NOT punitive. However, I do not expect anyone to be so naive as to not understand WHY they were blocked and do something to rectify their errors - the "slap on the wrist" was meant that way. I hope you do realize that you made some mistakes and that you won't repeat that behavior. Don't act like a victim, because you are not - you had your "rights." You could have requested to be unblocked, in which case another admin would have reviewed the circumstances. While it is natural for anyone to see a block as a punishment, you should have some faith in Wikipedia's policies and try to not see it that way. There is no reason for you to trust me (and vice-versa) but at least have some respect for Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did request to be unblocked; you know that, you can publish it if you like. And I was not given any opportunity to address the issues before you blocked me, was not given any notice of the discussion here.

A "slap on the wrist" is punishment. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You e-mailed me and I responded on your talkpage. When I say request for unblock, I mean putting this {{unblock}} on your talkpage and asking "another admin" to review. As far as I know, this is an old issue and you've been warned and asked to discuss numerous times. My job was to stop the disruption. You can take the block as a punishment if you like - I don't care, that's your choice. I certainly did not intend it as a punishment. Rama's arrow 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and by the time you responded there, 18 hours of the block had passed, and it was a couple of more hours before I saw it. The instructions to contact the blocking administrator first; though they don't preclude the use of that template immediately, that is unlikely to accomplish much unless as in the case of Darwinek's earlier block of me there is clear abuse of admin privileges by the blocking admin.

If that is "as far as you know", then what were you doing blocking me? Can you show me one place where I've been "warned and asked to discuss" the sorting issue involved here, and I have failed to do so? Can you show me even one place where your buddy, your use-of-the-block-button mentor Blnguyen[12] the one whom you owe for Blnguyen's conomination for adminship,[13] has tried to discuss this sorting issue with me and I have failed to do so?

The thing is, Wikipedia:blocking policy specifically provides "Blocks . . . should not be used as a punitive measure." Far too often we see admins giving lip service to this principle, then basically ignoring it. It isn't often one comes right out and admits violating the rules, though. Gene Nygaard 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[14], Husond's warning is one of them, unheeded for close to a month. Other interesting diffs:[15], [16], [17], [18]. So I blocked you to return the favor of Blnguyen's co-nom? Phew! Thanks for letting me off easy - I see poor Husond was convicted of sockpuppetry by you.

Let's get something straight Gene - you have a long history of rudeness, boorish behavior and personal attacking. No admin will need hesitate in blocking you if this pattern of behavior continues unabated. Rama's arrow 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to disprove your statement above that "My job was to stop the disruption" was a total falsity, and that what you intended was indeed punishment, you could not have done a much better job of it. Did any of that involve Blnguyen? No. Did any of them involve current discussions? No. Did any of them involve disruption that would need to be stopped with a block? No.

Why in the world are you bringing up a discussion with User:Hseldon10 that was resolved amicably between us two weeks ago? "Stop the disruption"? Bullshit. Don't be trying to invent post hoc justifications for your actions.

You were taking User:Blnguyen word for it on the issue of the sorting of Indian cricketers, something for which he has repeatedly misrepresented any earlier consensus. That's the main reason you blocked me, because he had asked that I be blocked so that he could revert my changes with impunity and gain an upper hand in a content dispute.

You claimed that you were blocking me because I had previously been "asked to discuss" the issues, without ever pointing out any case in which I had failed to discuss the issue when it had been brought up.

I'll even do you one better than what I said above. I challenge you to show me even one case from before your block of me in which User:Blnguyen has responded to me, when I have replied to him.

• Did he do so here at Talk:Yuvraj Singh on 16 Jan 2007 UTC? No, he did not.
• Did he do so here at User talk:Gene Nygaard on 4 Sep 2006 UTC? No, he did not.
• Did he do so above, when I pointed out that he had misrepresented the old, archived consensus? No.
• Did he do so anywhere else? Not that I can find. Can you?

I suggest you reconsider who really needs to blocked for refusing to discuss the issue. One of those non-punishment slaps on the wrist, of course. I won't hold my breath while I wait for it to happen, however.

Exactly who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here? An editor who goes through a category and fixed those which appear out of place? Or a different editor who reverts a series of those edits and then tries to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by gaming the system. One who runs here to ask that I be blocked, without my having reverted any of the unexplained reversions he has just made, without even telling me that he is coming here to complain,? Who does not discuss those reversions on the talk pages involved or anywhere else, but comes here and misreprents the existence a previous consensus? Gene Nygaard 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus Feldspar

This incident is being brought before this board by Justanother 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue: User:Antaeus Feldspar continues his long-runnning attacks of me and attempts to get me in trouble with admins that I am very used to dealing with on Scientology Series talk pages (and in his edit summaries) but now he has brought his venom to the noticeboards and it needs to stop now. Recently he has disrupted the BLP noticeboard, and this board, in addition to his usual talk page performances. He also recently violated 3RR on the BLP noticeboard in addition to making an unjustified allegation of WP:PA against me there. See Incidents section below

History (brief): Since I arrived in August 2006, User:Antaeus Feldspar has carried out a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing against me specifically and by name for what I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist and editing in the articles to bring some of my understanding to them and to clear out a bit of lurid attack and WP policy violations. While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens; we are not! User:Antaeus Feldspar's belittlement and marginalization started in some of his first interactions with me[19] and has continued unabated and with only increasing fervor.

Remove rhetoric. Sorry. This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request: I, of course, cannot require it but would appreciate it if the highly POV and involved editors/admins on both sides of the Scientology issue abstain from commenting here. That means the three or more known admins with heavy off-site activity in attacking Scientology and those editors that are involved in the perpetual arguing and edit-warring that goes on in those articles. I mean both "sides". Why? Because all that will do is carry the same poisonous invective over here and this AN/I report is, if anything ,about that invective. Let's let the neutral uninvolved parties have their say, for a change. I promise that I will try my hardest to not say a lot more than I am saying now and, of course, Antaeus will have his say but if we could limits the POV "helpers" for either of us then that would great.

Heads-up: User:Antaeus Feldspar will likely bring up any and all incidents of my being less that respectful to him as a perceived "defense". I am not going to respond to those; if User:Antaeus Feldspar feels that he has a case then he should bring it; but not in this incident report. If I have been short or sarcastic with him, my only defense is that I tired quickly of the attacks and I think it will be clear that my comments are not nearly in the same league as User:Antaeus Feldspar's calcuated disruptions. But this is not about me despite any upcoming attemps to make it so.

Incidents: I am just bringing up the most recent incidents and concentrating on those that are disruptive of the noticeboards as they are off-topic and are, IMO, intended to get an admin to sanction me without due process. Note that no admin has done that to me so it has been in vain.

• Attacks me on AN/I: See the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Not too terrible but illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic (BabyDweezil) and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard.
• Attacks me on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard: This diff (adding sig) shows a pretty "typical" attempt at marginalization and belittlement of me. I would not bother with it except to show his pattern. See the previous paragraph from him also for more of the same. I brought my questions to BLP noticeboard here and found that there was merit in my ideas (not "fantastical, bizarre" as User:Antaeus Feldspar characterized them after all).
• Disruption and attacking me on BLP: In this posting, allegedly on Tilman Hausherr, User:Antaeus Feldspar starts out with an accusation against me and goes on to imply that I am a liar and it doesn't get any better from there. If he has a real question for the board then he should just ask it without all the disruptive accusations. That is abusive.
• 3RR on BLP: User:Antaeus Feldspar has made the same deletion (4) (5) times in a period sufficiently close to 24-hours to clearly violate WP:3RR despite a non-involved admin doing the first reversal of his deletion. Deleting the same material (4) (5) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) (4) reversions, it is (4) (5) reversions.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=111514306&oldid=111513033 And now 5RR

• Disruptive and attacking me on BLP: As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA and made sure to leave my sig next to his "[personal attacks removed]" notation. This would lead someone to think I had actually made a PA. In the first removal he accused me by name in the edit summary: "remove personal attacks by Fossa, Steve Dufour and Justanother".

Desired outcome: I want the attacks to stop. I want User:Antaeus Feldspar to understand, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards in his apparent desire to "get me". --Justanother 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite these attacks for me? I'm looking at the diffs and I see an editor who clearly disagrees with you, but I fail to see any evidence of attacks on your personally. I'm looking into the 3RR violation now too for you Glen 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) PS; Who's the third admin? :)

Actually, on second thought anything I do or say will be claimed as a COI so I'll step aside. Glen 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make this plain and simple. Justanother seems to believe that Wikipedia:Assume good faith simply does not apply to him. He believes that he can make as many personal attacks as he wants, and make them as vicious as he wants, as long as they are in the form of attacks upon the integrity of other editors. To start with just the accusations directed at me: Accusations that I am a religious bigot: "I can only assume [his motivation] is my being an open Scientologist". "While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens..." (emphasis added) Accusations that I aid and abet trolls to further this alleged religious bigotry: "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions"[20] (The post where I supposedly would have made my loyalties clear by using "your" is here, BTW.) Accusations that I have targeted him for "a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing". Accusations that I engage in "calculated disruptions" and "[bring my] venom to the noticeboards" and "run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards" to "get him". What is deeply ironic is that Justanother seems absolutely horrified at the idea that his behavior could ever be questioned ("As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA") but at the same time seems to take it as his right to not just question other editors' behavior but declare the question settled and label the other editors on the basis of his assumptions. Note his behavior at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#Blocked_for_a_week where he labels the editors on one side of an issue as "the POV-pushers" and to other editors as "the NPOV editors". I know I am not the only target of this treatment by Justanother but I confess I am getting really damn sick of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In order: 1) Noticeboards are for reporting situations that need attention. Just because you do not notice or do not agree that your actions create a situation that needs attention does not mean they are being used for "attacking" you. 2) As anyone can easily verify for themselves, there was no 3RR violation, let alone a "5RR". 3) It was not a false accusation of personal attacks, it was a true report of personal attacks. 4) As regards your "other specific incidents", you ask the admins to look at AN/I and "... see the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar ... illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic ... and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard." I would ask anyone who looks at that thread to see that in less than half an hour you made three posts, each with no content more pertinent than "All due respect but cannot respond", "Sorry, can't respond", or even just "mmmpphhh" -- all because an admin asked you not to edit disruptively. If someone's efforts made that thread "all about [you] in front of the admins" I believe I know whose efforts they were, and they weren't mine. "Abusive of the noticeboard," indeed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - I would suggest for the patience of the Admins that you both try to keep your posts a little shorter on this board... I do think that the comments about Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) by other Admins on Previous Administrator's Noticeboard are quite telling. Also, his continued re-insertion of his own obvious violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard also seems highly disruptive and non-constructive towards any sort of meaningful dialogue/discussion... Smee 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Can someone else comment on this? It appears that Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) is inappropriately canvassing, in order to solicit/manipulate this process? Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4. I had also thought that this is (generally) a place for administrators to comment? Smee 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

This is not about me® Please note inappropriate attack by highly POV "helper". --Justanother 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, DO NOT use my username and make baseless accusations in the edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm feeling strongly inclined to prove that this, after all, is about you® Duja► 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are some people who hate Scientology and make that the main interest of their lives. But at least insulting you on Wikipedia is better than burning you at the stake. :-) Steve Dufour 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a very good example of the sort of things we're dealing with here. Steve has just basically said to one or more editors here 'You hate Scientology and make that the main interest of your life.' How can that comment be anything but a personal attack? Is it supposed to not be a personal attack because Steve did not spell out which of the editors in the current discussion caused him to start talking about how "some people" are hate-filled religious bigots? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your edits tend to violate WP:NPOV and WP:RS and that you edits produce entirely unscientific articles with a clear anti-cult bias. Since there are many like-minded people here and since Scientology has a bad reputation and there are only very few people who actually are interested in Scientology outside of anti-cultists and Scientologists, there is absolutely no chance to get a neutral article here. That's why I at least debunk your proceeding. Call it a "personal attack" if you wish, you do your personal attacks in the article space, which is much worse, I believe. Fossa_?! 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar has violated 3RR, falsely accused User Justanother of WP:PA and continuously violates the integrity of Wikipedia by deleting content from a notice board/talk page. Both parties might appear a bit overreacting but this should not be used to cover up or divert from violations of Wikipedia Policy. "Feelings" should have no weight on this notice board, also Admins please stick to the rules here . Misou 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, just about everything that Justanother is accusing others of, he himself is in fact the person who has done. It is particularly problematic that he has, while in the middle of making heated accusations against others, has labeled others' better-grounded concerns about his own conduct as personal attacks and disruption.

As Antaeus notes above, it is as if Justanother feels he has the right to criticize others' work (and quite forcefully), but others do not have the same right in return. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; it is not acceptable to proclaim (as Justanother seems to be with his "this is not about me") that oneself must be held above criticism.

I agree, by the way, that the problem here is probably largely one of WP:AGF. Justanother behaves as if anyone who disagrees with him on certain issues -- particularly the relevance of certain information pertaining to Scientology, some of which the Scientology operation itself has long tried to suppress -- is thereby demonstrated to be malicious, or at least deficient in good judgment. This is not acceptable conduct for a Wikipedia editor. --FOo 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® simply means that, while feelings get hot on both sides on the Scientology Series talk pages, Feldspar has decided that it is appropriate to continue his venom on more general noticeboards and has violated 3RR to pursue an attack against me and others with a false charge of WP:NPA. Making it about me here instead of about the incidents that I raise just opens the door to more of the same and I, for one, will not play that game. I will not argue my actions with you here; if you feel that you have a case then bring it and stop the allegations. Please. The incidents I raised speak for themselves. --Justanother 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Why do you keep putting '®' after everything you bold? John Reaves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply to call attention to the fact that, rather than address the incidents I bring up directly, the poster is trying to flip this to be about me. Very common tactic. Knew it was coming. That is my way of keeping it to a minumum on this discussion. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you would like to control the discussion and forbid others from bringing your conduct into question. That's evident from your labeling of Antaeus's concerns about your behavior as "personal attacks". However, you are not afforded the privilege of controlling the discussion here on Wikipedia.

When you accuse others, you should expect that your own conduct will be examined. It is not particularly uncommon, after all, that the one who accuses others of misconduct is actually doing those things himself. (See, for instance, Matthew 7:1-5 for Jesus's word on the subject, and "The Criminal Mind" for L. Ron Hubbard's.) --FOo 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother: you appear to have posted a request for comment to the admin noticeboard by mistake. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not when it involves misuse of noticeboards, 5RR, and a false charge of WP:PA. Then it belongs here. Had it stayed on the talk pages and not involved the 5RR and false accusation then I would have dealt with it otherwise. --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks that Justanother doth protest too much. Really, the diff links are harmless, and no personal attacks. As Glenn said, these are just people disagreeing. "Complaints" like these just waste time of the involved editors, and admins who had to read this. --Tilman 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So I should just shut up and allow it to continue? Business-as-usual? --Justanother 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A material disagreement isn't a personal attack. --Tilman 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! and Justanother should also let user Tilman make his anti-Scientology propaganda on WP quitely! http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html --Jpierreg 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Last call: 5RR and false accusations of WP:PA by User:Antaeus Feldspar

Sure hope that this is not about my being a Scientologist. That would be weird. OK, before this one archives out, I will call attention again to the point that there are abuses here. It is not about my feelings. --Justanother 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears from the discussion above that at the very least, multiple individuals feel that there have been "abuses" from both sides of the aisle... Smee 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Beware of moral equivalence arguments; they tend to favor the worse of two "sides" -- especially when an offender presents himself as a victim. --FOo 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already said all I need to say. The supposed "5RR" did not exist and it is challenging to say the least, to try and figure out under what standard (if any such single standard exists) it is perfectly okay to accuse someone of being a religious bigot, it is perfectly okay to claim they're guilty of "calculated disruptions", it is perfectly okay to fulminate about their "belittlement" and "marginalization" and "venom" and "invective", but for the person accused of all this, to identify a statement that similarly makes accusations of bad faith as a personal attack is somehow itself a personal attack. I know I'm not the only one receiving this treatment, but I'm getting ever more tired of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly makes two of us that are tired of "the treatment". You can help by stopping the mendacious (good word, thanks for teaching it to me) hyperbole and attempted belittlement and marginalization on your part. It should be clear by now that it doesn't work. --Justanother 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop what I never started. If you actually perceive "attempted belittlement and marginalization" perhaps it's because of your tendency (very apparent in this, the section of WP:ANI that you are trying to OWN) that when someone sees a situation in any other way than you, you cannot or will not consider any good-faith explanations but immediately jump to (and loudly broadcast) the conclusion that it has to do with you being a Scientologist and the person you disagree with not being one, and as shown by your continuing repeated references to a non-existent 3RR violation, facts simply play no role in the process. Go ahead and take the last word (you will anyways) but that record's getting old. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can have the last word. --Justanother 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney's signature

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) has today started to sign his name with IRA at the end (linked to his talk page)- see [30] for example. I asked him why he was doing this- but haven't managed to get a direct response yet. I don't think it is appropiate to have the name of a terrorist organisation in an editor's signature. WP:SIG states that a signature must conform to the username policy. It clearly states that Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime) are not allowed. Astrotrain 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organisation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy. This is just what we need. One Night In Hackney, is it possible that you could be urged to voluntarily desist from this practice rather than bring about controversy and divisiveness regarding it? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked about it on his talk page. He did not respond positivly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I engaged in polite discussion with someone who has spent days trolling several pages I am involved in, then he continued it past the point of relevant discussion. For example see the discussion on the Ivor Bell talk page and the related discussion here. Please can someone actually clarify that if the author, title and ISBN number of a book have been provided that is everything that is required for an editor to verify a reference, there is no requirement that the source is available online. Are books not reliable sources any more? One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with your WP:SIG how?--Isotope23 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you maybe give a response as to why you are using IRA in your signature? You must know that people will associate that acronym with a terrorist organisation that is outlawed in the United Kingdom? Astrotrain 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He should keep it, why should he change it because Astrotrain doesnt like it, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation.--Vintagekits 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a date, to make it clear which IRA he's talking about? Many people will think he means a modern paramilitary organisation. There are better ways to educate people about the history of the IRA.DanBeale 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Isotope23, I feel it is important to put this situation into perspective. The editor in question has done nothing but troll me for several days, this is nothing but more of the same in my opinion. In reply to Astrotrain, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Harrods#History. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just needlessly divisive. Regarding the contentions of trolling etc, this should be resulting in a user RFC or an AN/I report to deal with it.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the IRA is a terrorist group or not. This is about the arguments about the nature of the IRA that having this in a sig will inevitably cause.

Does this disrupt Wikipedia? Yes. Is there any good reason to have this in a sig? I'm having trouble seeing any, and the implicit "it's my sig, I can do what I want" don't seem to outweigh "this project is here to build an encyclopedia, please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this is laugable - whatever wikipedia says, the majority of people with the UK see the IRA as a terrorist organisation - it's presence in a signature will only cause unrest and problems - it should be removed ASAP. --Fredrick day 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What's truly laughable on Wikipedia are all the self-important editors running around talking about "disruption" and "problems" when there isn't any. Where are the British citizens wailing and moaning about this user's signature? They, uh, don't exist. Like in so many other "controversies," the actual DISRUPTION is caused by mealy-mouthed editors pulling their own chains and getting into tizzies over NOTHING. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this is helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You trying to draw attention to yourself there MoeLarryAndJesus? You are pretty close to a WP:USERNAME block as is.--Isotope23 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"British Citizens" - well I perfer english gentleman myself... --Fredrick day 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Fredrick. My signature was temporarily removed (by me) at 21:42 anyway as a gesture of good faith while this is ongoing, and I have since replaced it with something else entirely so we can hopefully draw a line under this whole sorry saga. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original ("IRA") and revised ("1916") are fairly clear WP:POINT violations. Wikipedia is not a forum for one's political viewpoints. In good faith, per WP:SIG (surprised that isn't policy, btw) and given that the sig suffix is likely to cause disruption, ONIH might consider getting rid of it as an easy solution. Badgerpatrol 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1916 isn't "likely to cause disruption", because people won't know what he means by it unless they have prior awareness of this discussion. Lots of things happened in 1916. --Random832 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is crystal clear that the only reason he's doing it is to annoy Astrotrain, which is both childish and petulant. And the IRA in Wikipedia are not a terrorist origanisation, assomebody has a bee in their bonnet, but IRA should really be redirecting to the Provisional IRA article, which is what it is most commonly denotes. And the Provos were / are terrorists. Proto ► 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Badgerpatrol that this looks like a pretty clear WP:POINT violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. When one's actions are under scrutiny, it's not usually helpful to gratuitously antagonize one's colleagues. Raymond Arritt 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links ONIH provided, regarding on-going content and citation disputes with AstroTrain. While I'm not thrilled with the IRA sig, I do think that this is not a fully 'good faith' submission of a problem, but rather a way for AT to distract ONIH from the disputes. I think that the 1916 is a perfect compromise, and the two should both be focusing on content. This is pretty much a showboating case of system gaming, not unlike Astrotrain's argument that since he can't see a copy of a book to verify it, it's not a clear reference, and shouldn't count. I support the 1916 signature compromise. ThuranX 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation (in autograph books)

I recently had a user sign my autograph book with Jimbo Wales's signature. Please view this diff. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have warned them. I also found another instance where they had also done it. I also reverted that addition. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, way to overreact. A lot of signature books have "Can I really edit this?" or somesuch, supposedely from Jimbo Wales, in them for the humour of Jimbo supposedly asking if he can edit it. You've gone a bit over the top by warning him for impersonation if all he's doing is signing signature books like that. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't approve of the whole autograph sub-pages, but thats a little bit of an overreation to warn someone about it. The "Can I really edit this? -- Jimbo Wales" joke is sort of a recurring joke among users. Nothing that serious. — Moe 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's overreacting and maybe it's a joke but some users get excited when they see Jimbo has signed their signature book and are probably felt let down, angered and whatnot if they find out it was another user making a joke [at their expense]. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, autograph sub-pages should just be out-right deleted since they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Anyways, Spawn Man is a established editor, not some random troll. We shouldn't warn our serious editors of this site about impersonation when it's obviously not their intent. — Moe 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Deskana Chrislk02 acted entirely appropriately in this matter, and I am glad the editor got a warning (which is really not much, in the great scheme of things). The issue is not who was impersonated, but that anybody was impersonated. You allow this under the guise of "joke", and then you open the door to people signing your name to Rfas and so forth. Where does it end? Good job, Chris. Jeffpw 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Deskana is on the other side of the debate. As am I. This is a long running joke, and it doesn't stretch into matters where comment attribution will ever matter. Impersonation on rfas is a long way off from "impersonation" on silly subpages. Spawn Man deserves an apology for this overreaction and the block threat. Picaroon 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I made sure to generalize. It realy wasent who he impersonate other than the fact he did impersonate. While anybody could track down impersonations it would make things alot worse. The only reason i warned him that he could get blocked is a previous discussion he had on his talk page claiming that he hadent been warned before blocking. I had given him a warning and wanted him to know that repeating it was not appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez! I was joking, as I saw a couple of other users placing the same joke on their autograph books & since Cremepuff wanted Jimbo to sign, I thought I'd be nice & sign it for him (Like santa's helpers...). Never knew you people would take a kind gesture so seriously. So a harmless joke which numerous other users make has been brought here because a girl can't handle being "let down". I was only trying to be nice & if you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't be on wikipedia, where people try & be nice in different ways. Spawn Man 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being mean and you being nice. It has to do with falsley representing yourself, and that being innapropriate. The question is, where do you draw the line, autograph books? talk pages? Im saying that lets not even start the precedent. Show me somebody else who does it and i will similarly warn them. Perhaps in a nicer manner (and, I will apolagize if my warning seemed harsh). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wykypydya has a fake Jimbo autograph. This is not the page I got the idea from, but I didn't fancy going through all the links I've visited to prove a point I know I'm right on.. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

User:Worldtraveller has been harrassing me nonstop for months now, and has ramped up his attacks today with the addition of threats of further harrassment. Can someone please look into this? --InShaneee 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive70#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block [31]. Here's an angry user feeling he was wronged. But hey, it's a 24h block from two months ago. The block was debated for longer than its duration back then, people objected it, but nobody seems to have reverted it. Have you asked Worldtraveller to stop posting to your talkpage? If you did, and if he feels he still wants to pursue the issue, you should kindly ask him to open an admin conduct RfC or look for arbitration. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually apologized to him (should still be on his talk page) for my error in judgement. He's actually already opened an RfC on me (which was deleted for lack of certification within the required time limit). I'm really not looking for consequences against him, I'd just like to be able to edit in peace here. --InShaneee 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've simply been looking for meaningful dialogue. InShaneee has responded directly to my many questions exactly once. But he's found the time and energy to accuse me of ridiculous things like harassment and personal attacks on plenty of other forums. Frankly I think an administrator who first of all either didn't understand or decided to ignore the blocking policy (I've been trying to find out which), and then persistently ignores inquiries regarding his contra-policy block, should not be an administrator at all. If InShaneee seriously thinks that being held accountable for administrative actions is threatening, then that's another reason why he is a very poor administrator. Why did he ignore my questions on his talk page weeks and weeks ago? Why is he not prepared to discuss his administrative actions? Worldtraveller 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we let bygones be bygones? Certainly, we want all editors (not just admins) to be accountable for what they do. But, bringing up issues from the past may not be very helpful. Friday (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I totally disagree about the bygones in this case. Utterly. It's important to be ready to criticize admin actions, and it's hardly WT's fault that time has gone by while Inshaneee has stonewalled. Is that the way to get away with inappropriate admin actions now? InShaneee, WT's actions don't IMO constitute harassment at all. For myself I would actually prefer be forewarned if somebody was going to propose my deadminship, rather than have it descend from a clear sky, but YMMV. If you had been more willing to reply, which I don't see how an admin can justify not doing, WT would hardly have nagged—"harassed"—you to reply. WT has reasonable cause for what he's doing. I'm glad to see, however, that you're not accusing WT of personal attacks for criticizing your admin actions. And before somebody does start talking about personal attacks and warning WT on his page (as several people did last time WT used the phrase "terrible administrator"), I'd like to stress that there's nothing personal about criticizing somebody's use of admin tools, even in strong terms. Certainly not if they're willing to back up the criticism with facts, as WT has amply done. Admins may be freely criticized for their admin actions. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I think HighinBC already responded to that better than I could. I know you're not a fan of mine, Bish, and have called for my DeSysOping more than once, but the tone here, as well as the manner in which this 'criticism' is being conducted, is what I take offense with. --InShaneee 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Me? I thought you and I got on like a house on fire, the times we've worked together (and that made me feel really bad about posting the above, but I thought it the right thing to do). Me call for your de-sysopping? You must be thinking of someone else. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

...Shoot, I may be. I apologize. I've got about a good a memory for Usernames as I do for...whatever it was I was about to compare that to. My mistake :). I reiterate, though, my problem with his tone and manner. I apologized to him because I fully accept that I was in the wrong with him, but I don't know how else I can go about resolving this than that, especially considering the length of time since this happened. --InShaneee 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) InShaneee, what exactly is your problem with my tone? And how did my tone prevent you taking part in the discussion of your block that several of your fellow administrators took part in here? The problem I have with you is that you persistently and rudely ignore questions about your use of administrative tools. What I asked for, the day after I got blocked, was an explanation from you of how your block squared with policy. What I got, six weeks later, was a vague reply which gave no evidence that you understood blocking policy, or knew that your actions fell way outside it. Your failure to discuss things with your fellow administrators when you were criticised was inexcusable, and your repeated ignoring of my questions on your talk page is extremely poor conduct for an administrator.

And by the way, HighinBC basically entirely misunderstood the situation and what I was saying. Worldtraveller 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if six weeks (sounds like more) has already passed, you need to forget about it. If you want to contest his block of over a month or so ago then go to RFAr and send them a case worth looking at than complaining at AN/I. — Moe 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you've actually read the start of this thread; I didn't start this discussion. Worldtraveller 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't to me [32] — Moe 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your post doesn't make sense. You seemed to be saying I shouldn't have raised this issue here, when I didn't. If you read the first post in the thread, you'll see that. Worldtraveller 11:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was a disagreement about a block. InShaneee apologized. Frankly, that should be the end of the story. Apology not accepted? Ok, if really necessary an RFC could be filed... which happened and then failed due to lack of endorsement. Worldtraveller, you say you didn't start this thread... but that obviously is not the issue. You did write this. You continue to pick at this incident long after the fact. Would it be nice if InShaneee had given an explanation and/or apology that you could accept and move on from? Sure... but he isn't required to do that. Sometimes people won't accept any explanation. Giving an apology and saying 'my bad' ought to have been enough. Explaining how the mistake was made ought to have been enough. Continuing to pursue the matter for more than a month despite that is harassment. Calling someone a terrible administrator for not wanting to talk to you is harassment. Saying you will do everything you can to get someone de-sysoped is harassment. You have asked for more explanation than the paragraph InShaneee provided. He has declined to give it. You are free to consider this rude and even to make the case to others that it is rude... once. However, you are not free to continue harping on and threatening him about it day in and day out for a month. Threats, insults, continual reference to a past incident, turning Wikipedia into a battleground... it's obvious harassment and it needs to stop. Note, I haven't looked into the original block... it sounds like an overly aggressive application of BLP, which happens to be something I have been arguing against vigorously... but it isn't relevant. No matter how bad the initial action may (or may not) have been, we have procedures for dealing with disagreements that do not involve harassing, insulting, or threatening the person. Follow those procedures or you will be blocked. --CBD 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly help if you had looked into the original block, before commenting on the fallout from it. It had nothing to do with WP:BLP. I can hardly believe you are threatening me with blocking for trying fruitlessly to simply start a dialogue. Worldtraveller 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on a user talk page

Hi. I've tried to ask ask User:Curiouscdngeorge to remove the personal attacks on Ronbo76 on his talk page, without success. The guy misspells Ronbo's name in a dozen demeaning ways and makes section headers that look like Ronbo wrote it. I think the section should go, and I'm not sure what else to do besides RFC. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks are a blockable offense, but I don't care for that. All I want is that section be removed. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a more appropriate forum for this type of problem, please let me know. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 68.203.151.76

• 68.203.151.76 A person from this IP has made numerous nonsens edits in Celine Dion related articles (even after last warning): Live in Memphis, Falling into You Tour, Celine Dion, In Some Small Way, A New Day... and others. And it's not the first time. The same edits were made earlier by this IP 72.177.198.57. Can you block this user? Big thanks Max24 03:14, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't block. However, you should report vandalism after last warning at WP:AIV; the vandal will be blocked more quickly. · AO ^Talk 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious creation of new user accounts -- vandalism? Sockpuppetry?

I routinely check the New User logs, and I noticed tonight one user, MurrMan (talk) (contribs) created several new Users with similar names: MurrMan5, MurrMan6, and MurrMan7. In addition, just prior to the creation of these users, MurrMan2, MurrMan3 and MurrMan4 were created. All these accounts were created between 02:49 and 02:53 on March 2, 2007 (UTC). I have seen several recent incidents where similarly named accounts were socks of other users. As of now, the only account with a warning is MurrMan, with a warning from Feb 27 [33] noting that several edits by this person look like other edits from an anonymous user. I'd bring this up at WP:SSP, but there doesn't yet seem to be any active sockpuppetry, just the tools in place to do this. Please let me know if this is not the correct forum for this. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy, though hard to say if it's intended to be sneaky sockpuppetry. I can't imagine MurrMan7 denying any connection to MurrMen 1-6 :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 04:24Z

Since having multiple accounts is not a crime, is there a template we can slap on these pages so that if any one account starts vandalizing, people who warn him will know to post the warning on the main account's page? Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can't we put put {{sock|MurrMan}} on them and then create Category:Suspected sockpuppets of MurrMan ? Not too bitey but makes it easy to watch them (or warn if one starts blanking sock tags on the others). —Dgies^t c 06:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Add MurrMan8 (talk · contribs) to that list - just created a few minutes ago. Natalie 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Spoke too soon - MurrMan8 has also created MurrMan9 (talk · contribs), MurrMan10 (talk · contribs), MurrMan11 (talk · contribs), MurrMan12 (talk · contribs), and MurrMan13 (talk · contribs) within that last 10 minutes. Natalie 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I just blocked all of them. Such a massive line of alternate accounts is disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on. Natalie 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fighting for Justice

Latest incident in long-standing content dispute on David Westerfield article [34]. The above user has repeatedly removed (see [35]) a short but important and well-sourced addition to the article which was approved by a third party (Girdag) a month ago (see [36]). Interestingly, FfJ’s response at the time to Girdag’s suggestions was “I think that is an excellent proposal”. But he has now done an about-turn.

This user has a history of misbehavior. Just a few days ago, he deleted all recent criticism of himself from his Talk page (see [37] and [38]), then promptly archived the CENSORED version of that page [39]. (That criticism was by LexiLynn, NowIAmGeorge and Wooyi.) So a casual observer would think he was perfect, or at least that he had reformed. (He apparently tried to do something similar on the Westerfield Talk page at about the same time, but then claimed he just “messed up” - see [40] and [41].) In early January, Wknight94 referred to him as “the king of personal attacks” [42]. He seems determined to retain his crown, as can be seen from his latest descriptions of me: “troll” (he’s used that several times) and “child-murderer fan” [43]. I am a TRUTH fan. Some of his comments are just plain childish, such as “impressive you can use the caps lock button on your keyboard. ME TOO. <----- see??? ” and “ooooh all capital letters like you use” (that was because I put ONE word, “truth”, in capitals).

He first appeared in Wikipedia in September last year, soon after TripleH1976 was banned and, even though he denies it, I still suspect he’s just another sockpuppet of that user. They have such similar interests and methods, for example: both hold strong views, both launch frequent personal attacks, both are active on the Westerfield and Eric Rudolph articles, and both delete or archive whatever they don’t like.196.15.168.40 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both users for a week concerning the ongoing editwarring at David Westerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Images with spam on them

This image used to have text on it.

Image:Kristi at Bradley1.jpg has a url for the uploader's web forum. Good? Bad? Indifferent? Many similar. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yuck. SchmuckyTheCat 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace (user pages are OK). These are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images.

Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.

However, if it is truly a free license then derivatives are allowed. If it is the vehicle that is the subject of the photo, crop away the credits. I'll look at where this image is used and what license it has. SchmuckyTheCat 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say get rid of them. We have plenty of relevant images without self-promotion in them. >Radiant< 12:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• In many cases, such text can be quite easily removed with the Resynthesizer plugin for the GIMP. For example, I just reuploaded a version of this particular image without text. Do try to avoid adding too many recompression artifacts, though. It is, of course, always better to get the original author to reupload a clean undefaced version whenever possible. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't try this with GFDL images, though; it violates subsections 4D and sometimes 4J. Best just to delete them. —Cryptic 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, how many potential contributors decide to withhold images because attribution doesn't appear alongside the image itself? Dragons flight 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney/Problems2

This user page has been created by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). It is against the userpage policy- libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. I think the User has created this page after I notified this noticeboard of his use of the acronym IRA in is signature (see above); as well as other uncivil remarks he has been making recently- and refusal to enter into discussion about editing issues. If the user wishes to make a compliant about me- he is welcome to do so as long as it is in accordance with Wiki policy.

I ask that this userpage be deleted and that One Night In Hackney is reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Astrotrain 11:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no libel, and it is in fact a preparation page for a RfC. Astrotrain is more than aware of this as I posted this in the two previous places he's mentioned this before he posted this report.[44][45] This is a clear case of forum shopping and attempting to destroy the evidence I have gathered to date. It should also be noted that the sub-page is not linked to from my user page or talk page. Thanks One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree here, that there is no evident libel or attack on this page. All it does is collect actions by Astrotrain that Hackney apparently disagrees with. Nothing that wouldn't be at home in an RfC. That said, I agree that your signature is provocative in the context at hand, and you should change the "1916" to "talk" to defuse the situation and show good faith. And then submit your RfC for whatever it is worth and be prepared listen to criticism. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly against userpage guidlines to have a subpage attacking the contributions of another editor. Astrotrain 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As Hackney has stated this is preparation for a user RfC, I think it should stand for now. If it is still there in a week with no RfC filed, then we can revisit.--Isotope23 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is going to file an RFC- he should either do it properly- or do it offline. It is still against policy on usernames and I am surprised it is being allowed to continue. Astrotrain 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain asked me on my talk page to delete that subpage, and I explained that it is not an attack page, and have asked ONiH to get the RfC ready as soon as possible so that it's out in the open. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Preparing an RfC in user space is perfectly legitimate. If it hangs around for months with no RfC forthcoming then it will be deleted, but right now it shows a series of statements which are credible as part of the preparation for an RfC. Hackney has previously spent many hours tracking down a prolific POV-pusher and vandal on wrestling articles, so I tend to support his right to at least gather a case. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ampersand or And?

124.186.224.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been trawling through pages, mainly those related to The Simpsons, changing occurrences of the word and for an ampersand &, and phrases like do not are becoming don'ts. I have left a message on the Talk Page asking them to stop, but have had no response and the activity continued. Any opinions/ideas/suggestions welcome. Chris Bradshaw 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe and should always take precedence over ampersands, and the same for full spellings over contractions; it's an encyclopaedia, after all. I've never heard of something like this... perhaps you can continue to warn, until it gets to the level where they'd be blocked, like with say spam or vandalism? That's the only way you'd go about it, I'd say, block if it keeps up... --Dane ^~nya 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I figured I better direct people to Talk:Daniel Brandt myself. Zocky | picture popups 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Dramatic. Endorse. Ben Aveling 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What section were you pointing at? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in reference to the earlier stubbing and protection of the article which has since been undone.Zocky (talk · contribs) posted a long justification for his action on the talkpage and I think that is what he is referring to.--Isotope23 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Roaster2008 (disruptive editing and vandalism)

User:Roaster2008, has been removing nn and speedy delete tags from vanity pages without sources that he has created, two of his pages have already been deleted today and he just recreated it again. Additional he has been vandalising my talk page, here is the history. Can admin please put a stop to this. Also I believe that IP:199.43.13.101 and IP:199.43.14.101 is a sockpuppet of Roaster and has engaged in similar behaviour.--Vintagekits 13:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He is still removing speedy delete tags for article he has written despite being informed that he cant and has now added a speedy delete tag to the sockpuppet article, here--Vintagekits 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, its just my head is hurting trying to talk to him.--Vintagekits 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see Fiskenator and his new article El Severe in which he calls me a bigot.--Vintagekits 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{db-nonsense}} tag to Fiskenator. --Edokter (Talk) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Isotope23 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review of User:MoeLarryAndJesus

MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs) was given an indef block for trolling by Proto (talk · contribs). I reviewed the block and declined it per his comments on WP:ANI#User:One Night In Hackney's signature as well as his requested username change. To me, both of these indicated that the editor doesn't "get it" and is just trying to be disruptive. Per his talkpage however, he seems to feel that I was trolling him here on ANI and that I should not have reviewed his block. So... I'm bringing it here. If anyone wants to review the block again, feel free to. I'd suggest contacting Proto before unblocking. I assumed that the block had nothing to do with the username and was more related to the series of unhelpful comments User:MoeLarryAndJesus was making on ANI in the midst of some admins trying to difuse the situation.--Isotope23 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the user was making poor comments here, however, in that thread there were comments that were saying he was close to a username block. I think possibly the block was for trolling and a username violation. Anyway, I requested a name change for MoeLarryAndJesus but if the block is to stand, let me know and I'll remove it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to say we should good faith with him, but looking overhis talk page, there is way too much trolling for that so I would support an indef, I'll remove the request for changing username now RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, I blocked him for his blatant and self-evident trolling. For a purported new user, this was a very specific and unusual place to suddenly show up and start sniping at editors and making disruptive, smartass comments. Nothing to do with the name - I'm probably one of the more lenient on usernames. If someone has a urgent, burning need to undo or reduce the block, fine, but as far as I'm concerned, it can stay. Proto ► 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my comment on ANI was misunderstood; I wasn't making a judgment either way on his username. My point was that while you are undergoing a username review, drawing attention to yourself with disruptive, unhelpful edits is probably not a good idea. My decision to endorse Proto's block had way more to do with what he said here on ANI. The fact that he chose another provocative username to change to just suggested to me that he was trying to make a WP:POINT and an unblock was probably not the best idea.--Isotope23 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for keeping iamges and keeping users off my page

Can I please keep my images on my userpage. My page seems very dull without them. Can I please have a way for the article to only be edited for me, and please let me keep the images.Master Cheif 001 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The images on your userpage were copyright violations; Wikipedia only has a copyright justification for using fair use images in articles, not on userpages (read the fair use article for more information). You're welcome to use images from Category:Free images, which don't have a copyright problem, on your userpage (as long as you obey the user page guidelines). --ais523 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not allowing fair use images on userpages is a legal restriction that we are unable to relax on due to copyright concerns. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Anencephaly_front.jpg on top of page

Why did I see multiple copies of Anencephaly_front.jpg on the top of the page many many times? I can't see where to remove it, but when I previewed this comment it was gone, so that is very strange. Any ideas? -- Whereizben - Chat with me 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They were in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader.Geni 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geni beat me to it by seconds! Anyway, I blocked the IP ... apparently it's Willy on Wheels, a banned user with whom I'm not familiar. The IP had just come off a one-week block, so I slapped another one-week block on it, but perhaps that address needs to be blocked for a much longer term? | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's Willy, not the right MO and we've not seen that one for a while anyway as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe

user: Apostrophe has been constantly harassing and wikistalking me. He was blocked once for harassing users in edit summaries, but he continues... Examples: Edit summary referring to me: "God, not you again". Also, see my talk page for his lovely comment. it should be "Request declined". I before has tried to talk to him on his talk page, and he deleted by comment. I was blocked for supposed harassment, so he should as well. InvaderSora 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another in a long line of attempts to get me banned:

• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]

' 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding a fair bit of incivility on Apostrophe's part (including the aformentioned edit summary), but nothing that suggests harassment or wikistalking. InvaderSora: If your allegations are true, please provide some diffs to demonstrate this. Your constantly posting these accusations with no evidence wastes everyone's time, including yours. Heimstern Läufer 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, many rude commemnts towards me. Second, Almost every page i edit he goes to. InvaderSora 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot has gone crazy

Hello -- just wanted to let you know that HBC AIV helperbot is duplicating content in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism every few seconds, which is causing its size to increase exponentially. Looks like a bug... Stephen Hui 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC is now aware; AIV is operating normally again, and the bots seem to be running properly. --ais523 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a bug in the new fix instructions function, it has been fixed. It was stopped in minutes. Thank you for your patience. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Provocation by User:LordRahl

Any thoughts about how to handle this situation? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More on this issue → [56], [57]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks as if they've been reverted, and the user warned. I'm not sure anything more is warranted at this point. If he continues, of course, that's a different story. Shimeru 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting side-dust-up

While I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the ... interesting events surrounding Essjay and his false credentials, a fairly disruptive side dust-up has occurred involving FCYTravis. As some may be aware, there is a straw poll ongoing at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Some have raised concerns that it an attack page by nominating it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Irregardless of my own feelings there, it was improperly closed by Travis with the following rationale: speedy keep - I am an admin. Thanks. Deleting this page is not going to happen, period. At first he was reverted by fellow admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and then by myself. Am I the only one other than Betacommand that thinks that is an extremely poor closing reason? This has been discussed somewhat on his talk page, with what I think were fairly inoffensive comments, to which he responded with astounding vitriol. At first I gave him a {{uw-npa3}} warning, which may or may not have been too strong, which he removed, saying in fairly abrasive terms not to use a template, so I iterated my thoughts in my own words: If you cannot communicate in fashions that are civil and do not include personal attacks, then do not communicate at all. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable but continued infractions will be sanctioned. In my opinion his responses hardly follow the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator. The comment on Sagacious' talk page is particularly telling [58] as well as his response to my warning [59].

The issues here are several I think:

• The MFD notice for the page has been disruptively removed several times.
• FCYTravis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has improperly closed the MFD, and then revert warred when another administrator, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted, ending when I reverted and asked him to recuse himself.
• Travis' responses have been uncivil and abrasive, and his "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude is unhealthy. He has not maintained the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator.
• Travis clearly has a strong negative opinion of Essjay, which is the topic of discussion on the disputed page. Him closing an AFD on the matter is a clear Conflict of Interest and is grossly inappropriate. Administrators should refrain from using their administrative powers in situations where they have a personal stake.

Sincerely, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The page close message was in response to my previous close being reverted by Betacommand who then posted "If you're not an admin, don't close this." Well, I am an admin, and thus that reason is not particularly relevant in this case. The MfD has also been closed by Mackensen, an arbitrator - a close which was reverted, by the MfD's opener, Corvus cornix. Peter M Dodge then placed a wikitemplate accusing me of a "personal attack" on my Talk page, when he knows (or should know) that unnecessary use of templates rather than personal messages can be interpreted as an insult. Furthermore, I am entitled to remove postings from my User talk page at any time - it's not a "permanent record" of alleged misdeeds. FCYTravis 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only response you have to these claims are to attack the person making them, I think it speaks volumes for their veracity. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the straw poll is not an appropriate venue for discussion. Many, many others apparently disagree with you. FCYTravis 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Wow, what a great way to address the concerns.</sarcasm> I am !impressed. He expressed concerns about your behavior and that is your only response? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is only one of four issues. Care addressing the others? Calling people names is hardly appropriate, nor is the "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude healthy to the project. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, we are discussing whether there was a proper discussion about closing the discussion regarding whether we should continue the discussion that was set up to summarize the other discussion which was set up as an overflow from the original discussion. I consider myself as big a process-nerd as anyone here but the number of meta-levels here is high. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a MFD over the discussion. Travis improperly closed it, and followed it up with a series of personal attacks and "I'm an admin I'll do what I want" type comments to anyone who disagreed with him. I for one have an issue with that kind of attitude, and hence the post here. I apologise if it is unclear. I tried to summate it in the points above. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the procedural situation, myself. But imagine trying to explain this thread to a non-wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's your opinion that it was an improper close. Again, I note that I was far from the only administrator to close it, or to ask for a speedy close. The fact that you and I disagree on the nature of a close does not an "incident" make. FCYTravis 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the template warning about personal attacks was justified. While it may have been FCYTravis's impression that the MfD would not pass, it was still inappropriate to close it prematurely. 12 keeps (1 made by a single edit user) and 7 deletes, in my opinion, does not in any way justify a closure at that point. Regardless of whether the initial closure edit summary was in response to the small message at the top, the user's behavior past that edit has done little to convince me that it was in good faith. Further to this, I believe this user may be in breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, mainly after they added this comment to the MfD. (Even if it's not explicitly stated in policy, the fact this user has an apparent strong opinion in the Essjay matter makes it difficult for me to see how them closing an MfD relating to the matter is fair and justified.) --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we all would've learned by now that you don't solve problems by hastily trying to shut down discussion? --Cyde Weys 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Newyorkbrad's comment. I suggest we archive this discussion about closing the discussion about deleting the discussion .... aaargh, no, I can't stop.... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My main complaint is with Travis' attitude and behaviour, which are in my view completely unacceptable. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to know why I was reverted without comment. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My speedy closes were no more or less disruptive than your and Corvus cornix's attempts to shut down and delete a highly-active discussion about a Wikipedia arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, oversight and checkuser who has admitted to creating his entire life story from whole cloth and lying about it to a reporter. FCYTravis 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Special rights do not confer special status to people in closing discussions, Travis, and I think you just highlighted your conflict of interest better than I could have. Mackensen, I would like to know the reason as well, but it is tangential to this discussion - perhaps you can discuss this with the reverter on their talk page? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise that subpages on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard were the new places for official dispute resolutions. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a personal stake in this issue, Peter M Dodge, given that Essjay appointed you to the position of checkuser clerk. You're showing loyalty, which is fine, but don't try and pretend I have some sort of personal vendetta while you're somewhere above the fray. FCYTravis 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel Warring stops now

May I remind the gentlemen Admins that these petty conflicts are an embarresmant for Wikipedia? If this goes on, expect Jimbo to desysop you in a instant as he did last week, when bickering admins couldn't keep their heads cool. --Edokter (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• On top of that. If Essjay needs to drop any position, Jimbo will make that decision. As far as I'm concerned this new info has no effect on how reliable and efficient his Wikipedia contributions are. Voting this early is indeed evil. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Out of interest, is there any way to override the MfD process - or to somehow lock the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay page to help prevent matters getting worse? I really don't think the current 'discussion' is helping things in the slightest. Nevermind, finally it's moved to RfC. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You don't think it's interesting that virtually no one agrees with Jimbo that "What Essjay did is okay"? Just because it came as a result of some weird vote-like thing doesn't mean it's an opinion that should be brushed aside... obviously most people feel that way. --W.marsh 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  No not really. There are plenty of people who agree with Jimbo, and it doesn't surprise me they didn't want to join in alongside the wash of people !voting for the other side. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right. In a community of tens if not hundreds of thousands, a few dozen people piling on to a straw poll is hardly a groundswell - and actually quite a few seem to think that no sanctions are necessary at this time, and that we should wait for Essjay to explain himself. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • You don’t think those of us who find that subpage <expletive> <harsher term for ‘silly’> would validate it by participating, do you? The page cannot really be seen as anything but a non-representative list of opinions; in particular, ‘obviously most’ cannot be supported by it. Anyway, the RFC presumably obsoletes the subpage. —xyzzy_n 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Therefore, we're not in a position to judge how many people agree or disagree with Jimbo's view - if we've only that to go on. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info

This edit inserted what appears to be a personal phone number. It probably should be removed from the history. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Portugal

Guys, I have been editing this page and it seems that for some reason it is not displaying the references section that is on the edit box. Categories and links to other language pages are not displaying as well. can you guys help or do I need to go somewhere else? Galf 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'll have a look. Have you tried reloading your browser, BTW? Yuser31415 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You forgot to close a <ref> tag :). Cheers, Yuser31415 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I, ahem....knew that, ... just hmm testing the ssytem, everything working... splendid, young man! Seriously, thanks Galf 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review, please

Dr4chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I went straight for a 24 hr block, without the classic intermediate test warnings, as I noticed multiple page blankings (or replacing with "U got cheesed") in a few minutes, even as non-admins tried to revert his edits, so this looked like an emergency. But looking a bit closer at his edits afterwards, I noticed that some of his blankings were reverted by himself... in short, here, someone else please take a look. I'm still 80% sure I was right, but not 99% any more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, it looks like a necessary preventative block. We can do without this editor for 24 hours at the very least. Trebor 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage being used to attack a user

User:Peter M Dodge has recently decided to leave Wikipedia. In so doing, he has posted a parting statement on his userpage which says, in part:

• "Durin's edits were largely unhelpful, demeaning editors over edit counts and such"
• "[Durin] made a very nasty comment being directed towards myself [1] - better than me because I have a mental condition? Pssh. Shove it."

Setting aside whether my comment was as he notes for the moment (will address below), Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F states a position against polemical statements and quotes Jimbo Wales as saying "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I have no means of defending myself against any reader who comes to that page. It would be inappropriate for me to post a rebuttal on his userpage, or to remove this content from his userpage since it is an attack against me. If he wants to leave Wikipedia, that's his business and I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors. But, it is inappropriate for him to use his userpage as a soapbox to blast other editors on Wikipedia. Thus, I am bringing it here to have it removed from his userpage, assuming another admin feels as I do that this is inappropriate. --Durin 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what he wrote, I agree that it's inappropriate, and I've removed it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to my comments to him

This is quite frustrating to me because my every intent in posting this in response to him was to point out that I understood his outburst was not something he had control over, and I forgave him for it. No attempt on my part was made to act or sound as if I was somehow superior to him. My every statement on Wikipedia has continually and routinely shown that I do not hold any good-faith user in any higher or lower respect than I hold myself. This includes even Jimbo, whom I have taken to task twice before for what I felt were errors on his part. Regardless, I recognized post-facto that there were other ways of interpreting my comment towards him. Because of this, I apologized twice to him [60] [61]. In the last, I specifically asked him "If there's something more that I can do to make up for this error on my part, by all means please let me know." Despite this, he remains offended and continues to attack me for it. I am deeply bothered by this because there are alternate interpretations. If I could somehow undo what was said, I would. I never intended to offend him.

If User:Peter M Dodge wishes to take this matter up in the form of a formal complaint against me, I would be happy to have him do so, in the hopes that this can be amicably resolved. At this point, I do not see how I can make any more amends for this than I already have. My apologies to him are heartfelt and honest. Had I felt at the time there was any other way to interpret my comments towards him than the good intentions that I meant, I would never have clicked "Save page". I remain at his disposal to tell me how I might make amends for this in any way in which I have not already done so. --Durin 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made sincere amends, and on public pages, no less; you can't do anything else. It isn't your problem that he hasn't accepted your multiple attempts at an apology for a minor slip made with no bad faith intentions. Picaroon 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

I've noticed a tendency on the part of many admins not to leave a notice on Uses' and IPs' Talk pages when they block someone. This can mean that other editors leave pointless warning notices, not realising that a block has already been imposed, and other admins can pointlessly go through the beginning of the blocking process before discovering that they're wasting their time.

I've been leaving friendly requests on the admins' Talk pages, and so far everyone seemed to have seen my point. Today, though, for the first time an admin has responded by insisting that there's no point leaving a notice. Aside from the fact that it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy, is there any guideline or policy on this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive always known it to be a courtesy. The only time I dont is when I indef block a sock or block evader. Then, (and this may be wrong. I delete there page to deny them, any gratification). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ligulem#Blocking, where this started. I have seen a lot of other admins blocking IP's/throw away attacker accounts with 20 attack/vandalism only edits *not* posting messages on their talk. Now, Mel Etitis requests me to always post on talk pages to notify "users". --Ligulem 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The blocking process": The block log is right on the blocking page, at the bottom. So for me the "blocking process" is hitting the block link and there you are. On talk pages, I would have to wade through the history of the talk page to check if a user has removed a post from their talk page. A user's talk page is not a block history. --Ligulem 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent examples of other admins blocking anon users without leaving a post on their talk: Neutrality, RoySmith, Ryulong, Trebor Rowntree, Mikkalai, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ilmari Karonen, JzG. --Ligulem 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow everything that Ligulem says, but the list of admins who have done the same thing is irrelevant to the question as to whether it should be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many block templates and I personally try to always leave one on a talk page after a block, but I didn't see anything in the blocking policy that stated that this is necessary. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed under the "Instructions to admins" heading, using the word "should". We can debate whether that means it's required or not, but I think most of us would agree that not leaving one should be the exception rather than the rule. Please leave one (excepting obvious trolls or sockpuppets, which I don't think really require them); it takes less than 20 seconds and it's helpful to pretty much everyone. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information: If you dig into my block log, you will notice that I've only blocked IP's and vandalism/attack only accounts without notifying the user. As I noted on my talk, I haven't and I do not intend to *not* notify users I block that do have some minimally reasonable edit history (I have never block a user of this kind so far). I really fail to see why I should notify a throw-away vandalism only account like User:Chrissu1989. BTW these kind of users regularly remove block messages from their talk pages. So what does that mean if you don't find a "blocked" message on these kind of talk pages? --Ligulem 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that is says we should, but it doesn't appear to be mandatory. The reasons are for other other editors will be aware that the user is blocked...which is a good and valid reason. Should more adming use the warning messages? Probably. But I don't think it necessarily makes them remiss in their duties to not do so. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps this be done automagically?DGG 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant quotation (thanks Bbatsell):

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." Wikipedia:Blocking policy#How to block

I must say that I don't really understand "should" except as pointing out that it's mandatory; is there another meaning besides the prescriptive?

Could it be done automagically? The problem would be that there are different reasons for (and different periods of) block. Perhaps there could be a default message that could be overriden when the block is applied?

I see this as just one example of the general lowering of courtesy levels here; increasing numbers of editors fail to use edit summaries, for example, and it's surprising how many tag all their edits, no matter how extensive, as minor. Most simply ignore polite requests to use summaries, and some react with hostility and aggression. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I read "should" as "recommended". Mandatory is exactly that...mandatory. As I noted, I do use the templates and that is because I happen to think they should be used. But I am not going to judge others as being discourteous if they don't throw a template on the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I really feel attacked by your postings here and on my talk. I suggest we move on and I do post a message for each and every block I shall issue in the future. Ok? --Ligulem 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied {{block}} to the talk page of User:Chrissu1989, the most recent block I issued [62]. If there is a better template to use for this kind of case, let me know. Thanks. --Ligulem 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of IP: 70.53.94.116

This IP added these messages to different articles: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I've diffed your comments because no need to spread the personal details anywhere. Requesting deletion of diffs, too. x42bn6 Talk 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, took it to WP:AIV. For stuff like this you should get a faster response there. x42bn6 Talk 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Goofybiscuit

What is this awful userpage? please block ´em all.----Doktor Who (UTC)01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It´s ok now

[68]--Doktor Who 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting IAR actions

As it says somewhere above. I earlier today tried to move the Brandt article away from another non-consensus AFD by stubbing it and spliting any useful information to other articles. I provided a detailed explanation at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and specifically asked any reverting admin to explain their reasoning, and everybody else to let it go after that and continue with the previous process. Not everybody agreed, but we were having some sort of conversation about what to do next. So I finally went to sleep. When I woke up, I found the article on AFD again, ahead of previously agreed time. So it obviously didn't work, and now we're maybe even worse off, and if we are, I'm sorry I caused it.

What I find curious is this: Despite my thorough explanation, detailed reasoning, and a polite request to handle the matter graciously, I was reverted by Majorly whose only communication with me or the general readership of the talk page existed of an unprotection summary. I tried talking about it with him on IRC, but it's obvious that we won't come to an agreement that way. In any case, this isn't a question about Majorly, it's about whether this kind of revert is justified in this kind of situation. Zocky | picture popups 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Majorly reverted your edit, just your protection of the page. Since you had just made a major edit to the page, protecting it on your chosen version was inappropriate. (Why, for instance, should only admins be able to revert you?) Your explanation was certainly detailed but did not appear to me to explain why you felt protection was needed. In light of that I think Majorly's unprotection was justified. Though I don't begrudge your effort to try something original, and I think your edit was probably good, protecting the page was not necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My only admin action was protecting the page. When the page was unprotected, all my other actions were irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think that the admin part of your action was largely unexplained, and inappropriate. The main content of your edit, the stubbing and merging to which you devoted hundreds of words of explanation, was not reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand, he unprotected the page specifically by request of editors who wanted to revert the article itself. But in any case, my question is not "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" I agreed in advance that I would have no problem with anyone doing that and I don't. The more relevant questions are: was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing? was there sufficient communication from his side? was he right to ignore my request for explanation? Zocky | picture popups 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read your statement, I don't quite understand why you protected the page, aside from the fact that you liked your version. But presumably everyone else liked their versions as well. So to use your words I think the communication from your side was not sufficient. Majorly might have been a bit rude in his responses and certainly should have said a few sentences more at your request, but I think his initial unprotection summary was reason enough; your action was exceptional (and basically contrary to the main rules on using protection, since you apparently were directly using it to win a content dispute) and not well-supported by the connected explanation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What content dispute? What my version? I have nowhere expressed my opinion on what the fate of the article should be. I was looking for a way forward. We don't have a deadline, the article doesn't have to be perfect today or tomorrow. Even waiting for the whole 13 months would not have made Wikipedia a worse encyclopedia, and we were obviously discussing things to be done before that, even today. Zocky | picture popups 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You dramatically edited the article which was the subject of a current dispute, in a way directly relevant to that dispute. That makes you part of the content dispute. And this clearly expresses your opinion on the proper fate of the article. (To quote: "The only possible solution left is disambiguate. Since this obviously can't be literally disambiguated, I decided to split, merge, stub and protect.") To then protect the page (preventing people from reverting your major edit should they disagree with it) is not appropriate at all, without some strong explanation of the need for an extraordinary response (for instance, doing this in a BLP situation might be appropriate). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a content decision, it was about process. I was summarizing the arguments and deducing from them based on what both sides said, not based on what I personally would prefer, nor even based on what I think is the right thing to do with an article. I was attempting to shortcut another round of AFD which, especially with the rumours of admins being willing to close a non-consensus discussion as delete, wasn't looking like something that will solve our long-term problem with this article. Where does the assumption that I did otherwise come from? Zocky | picture popups 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was definitely a content issue; you changed the content of the article radically. By doing so you offer a clear opinion on what the article should contain (even if based on the opinions of others and not your personal preference), and involve yourself in the content dispute you were trying to address. I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this was a process action; what process involves stubbifying/merging an article and then protecting it? If the point was just to force a conversation, which is a valid goal, you can simply protect the article. There are very few exceptional cases in which you should both make substantial edits to a page and protect it. This was not one of them. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat like saying that an admin closing an AFD is getting involved in the content issue. "Process" is not the same thing as "policy". Policy describes and prescribes process. What I did was out of other policy than IAR, but it wasn't out of process because I did what IAR, itself a policy, demands in such cases. Zocky | picture popups 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Question; "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" Answer; Yes. To make such bold changes to an article then fully protect it... what were you thinking? To do so then make it that only admins should be able to make amendments? Highly inappropriate protection IMO. Q; "was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing?" A; Irrelevant. Sorry Zocky I just dont see your logic here Glen 02:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're not going to abandon IAR, and this was a rare instance of it being used as it's supposed to be used: I made a decision which was not inline with other policy, but I thought it the best course of action. I fully explained my reasoning, and was engaged in the discussion about it on the appropriate page. I didn't delete anything, nor force removal of any information whatsoever. I even myself moved the information I thought was notable to another article.

Some people expressed support, some were outraged, others were outraged at first, but decided to engage in the discussion anyway. I was not threatening to force my way, I even offered to revert myself if we can't come to an agreement in a day or two. I left an open option for any admin overruling me and the return to the regular process at any time, all I asked was explained reasoning, so that we can move on normally.

It's not just a matter of "respecting your felow admins". Majorly could have chosen to undo my protection and leave a message on the talk page, explaining why he thought that that's a better way of dealing with things and advised everyone to wait for the originally suggested one week before going into AFD. If he did, I wouldn't be here complaining. Zocky | picture popups 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that anything D.Bran.dt-affiliated is going to generate angst and various other issues, so I respect any attempts to allay some of that. In my opinion, though, IAR is intended more to be a way to avoid cumbersome process, rather than to avoid longstanding and important policy (such as not using protection to enforce your version of an article). I don't fault you for attempting it for the reasons above, but I also don't think it's something that should be done and protection should have been removed. However, I also agree that communication should have taken place by whoever unprotected to explain the reasons why. In my humble opinion, 98% of the wikidrama around these parts could be avoided outright if people would simply hold their horses and talk it out rather than reacting disproportionately out of moral outrage (note: speaking in generalities, not saying that's what happened here). So, in summary, I like to sit on fences. Both sides could have done things better, and (hopefully once Majorly sees this) we can all move on with better ideas on how to proceed in the future. Unfortunately, we'll still have all forms of d.bra.nd-T-related drama. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your rationale for the changes (though personally disagree with them) however, I dont understand what this has to do with fully protecting the article. The people you're protecting it from are good faith editors. Not vandals, not those involved in edit wars, but those interested in seeing the best article being produced. Just because I have a sysop flag next to my name should not mean I'm the only one able to disagree with you. This is a misapplication of IAR. If your changes made such sense - why do you need to protect it? Glen 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point was keeping it at a near disambig for a time and moving all useful information about his activities to other appropriate articles. Let's face it, we're not talking about some random article. Without protection, I would have been immediately reverted. Sure, I could have gotten several people to do editwar for me and another admin to protect it afterwards, but if I tried that, the somewhat normal conversation we were having would have lasted 5 seconds instead of half a day. Zocky | picture popups 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my concluding comment on the matter at the latest AFD, as linked below. Zocky | picture popups 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's another AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) - up about this thing, despite the DRV determination that it should wait a week. I'm of the strong opinion that this one should be closed and not brought up again until some arbitrary point in time after the emotions of the situation have died down. Is anyone else of that view? --BigDT 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. A large part of the problem has been the denial of an appropriate forum for discussion due to early closures every AFD since November 2005. Let it run. Let it run long. Speedily cutting off discussion is making things worse. GRBerry 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I at this point have no choice but to agree that an AFD is probably the only way forward. But I'm extremely dissappointed that it was pushed today. We agreed just 3 days ago that the AFD would be in 7 days. After my IAR intervention failed, the proper thing is to return to the normal process, or possibly discuss other options, not run the AFD ahead of time. Many people indicated they want to present prepared cases at the AFD, and this cheats them of the chance to do that. Zocky | picture popups 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, who cares. I can understand Isotope's motivation for opening the debate early: to preemptively frame it in such a way that SNOW/IAR don't get invoked and to start right off with a plea for everyone to be cool and civil. He could have waited but then he might not have been able to do that. I applaud his initiative there. Mangojuice^talk 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kmnmo

Can someone please look into this User and see whether they are eligable to have a temporary ban. Although not a significant issue, for one month this User has repeatedly (daily) continually reversed referenced data, and replaced with own data. The User has also ignored all attempts of communication in explaining what they are doing is against wikipedia policy. They have also made their own page of data in a forum with fake data, then referenced it. [69] thanks so much60.234.242.196 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Indigo7

User:Indigo7 is a new user who's bad-faith AfDing multiple articles, such as Internet Storm Center and Daily Illini, as well as disrupting Wikipedia:Press coverage. I'm trying to keep up with him.--Djrobgordon 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be AfDing all articles his real name was mentioned in because his vanity autobio was removed.--Djrobgordon 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of: Aquinas4

I'm requesting that Aquinas4 be block. I posted her second {{uw-vandalism4}} today. It's her second final warning. xD

--Theunicyclegirl 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make these requests at WP:AIV. Though I will do this block now. :D Congrats on the good job at counter vandalism. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of: Hhwha1

Click here to see his history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs).

Please use WP:AIV for reports of obvious vandalism. This user has already been blocked anyways [70], which is the only reason he's stopped... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks...

I know there is a fair amount distracting us today, and I am just as guilty, but there is a HUGE amount of stuff at CSD, more specifically in unsourced / untagged / cv images. I'm attacking it now, but we need more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting down to a far more manageable size now. Thanks for the heads-up. --InShaneee 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BillDeanCarter's comments on Essjay's Talk page

Could someone please consider a short term block for BillDeanCarter? He or she continues to make rude and hostile comments to editors on Essjay's Talk page despite several editors asking him to cease. I know that emotions are heated but telling other editors to "shut up", "shut up you big babies", "you are a big baby", "this is a moment when big babies can come out and whine", "you are a big baby", and "get over yourself" is only making the situation worse. Apparently the pleas to stop this behavior on his or her Talk page are not working; I ask that you consider a brief block to reign in this behavior. --ElKevbo 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can single out my occasional excesses when the entire Talk page is out of control. I'm trying to bring balance to what I consider to be a lynching of a fellow Wikipedian.-BillDeanCarter 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your excesses were not occasional; literally every single edit you made to that page has been needlessly abusive and abrasive. That you continue to do so after being politely asked to stop by multiple editors is completely unacceptable. --ElKevbo 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you can't expect balance from a discussion in which nearly everybody agrees. But even if it were different, attempting to bring balance by insulting people is not likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace Bonney

The creator of Grace Bonney, DesignReferences (talk · contribs), contacted me about the page, stating:

I created the entries and would like to have them removed because Administrators aren't doing a good job of keeping defamatory content off the page. The subject of the entries contacted me as well and ask me to remove them. I have requested Speedy Deletion because they have been constantly edited with personal attacks. I tried to blank the page all together and was told that my edit was considered "vandalous" (But in the FAQ on deletion it says that if a creator blanks a page it could be considered a request for deletion). Please let me know what I need to do to remove this entry all together from Wikipedia to prevent the defamation which is going on.

I figured it'd be best to get some admin input on the situation...if the subject of the article wishes to have his or her info removed, is that kosher? Vandalism can be fought and reverted, and the subject seems to have a WP:BIO-sufficient notability. What course of action should be taken? -- Scientizzle 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)