Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Soccer174

Bringing this here from WP:WQA. Soccer174 (talk · contribs) has made offensive and racist attacks at another user here, apparantly here, here, here. Grsz^Review! 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for a bit. Personal and racist attacks after many warnings do not have any excuse. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Several more messages in Chinese characters, but here I fall short. Grsz^Review! 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to "beat up" a user and then saying "This is for real and not a threat." leaves precious little wiggle room. I have blocked User:Soccer174 for three days, he should be blocked indefinitely if he continues after this time has elapsed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I hate Cantonese chauvinism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiChauvinism (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody block this sock? Grsz^Review! 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Sock blocked. I've also re-set the 72-hour block of User:Soccer174 per WP:EVADE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there also a way to check if Jing974623 is also a sock? Seemingly he was created purely to support soccer and his arguments. However, his writing style seems different so I'm not sure. Dengero (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try listing at WP:SSP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

User:Jakezing And Civility

As I was going through my watch list I stumbled on User_talk:Jakezing, at this revision. I was highly offended by his talk page "rules". I left the user this note. I was also discussing the matter over IRC with other editors, you gave me their opinions and gave input on this. The last bit of the conversation is here, before the user removed the disscssion.

Afterwards he readded his "fixed" rules. I need to go to bed soon, so I'll speed it up.

He then claims he has on been on wikipedia for over 3 years, thinking that this will make him more powerful then others and that he knows every rule. He also left a note on my talkpage about this. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything wrong with his editing? For instance, is his spelling and grammar as poor when editng as it is on his talk page? If so, then I think you've got a complaint; if not, why not just leave him alone? If you don't go to his talk page, then his "rules" can't bother you, so just stay away, no? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How about backing off and letting him alone for a bit? He is not disrupting your talk page or articles, is he? Why are you compelled to go to his talk page at all? Edison (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a few instances of incivility in there [1] [2], but as for talk page rules, meh. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Those rules certainly won't help with constructive collaboration, but his other edits don't seem too bad (mostly vandalism fixing, and some talk page antics with the same poor spelling and occasional dashes of incivility for flavour). I'd post on his talk page to warn it's not a good idea to be so aggressive, but according to his rules, I'm not allowed to =( (even if I have been here significantly longer than him). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

• Jakezing is easily one of the most uncivil editors on Wikipedia, period. And that's coming from a formidable challenger to that doubtful privilege. Sooner or later he will have to seriously amend his behaviour towards others. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite concerned about the "You idiots" bit, which is a widespread personal attack. Shnitzled (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record: As of right now, his "rules" state e.g. "if you'v [sic] come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much, i know the rules" — The truth of which he himself defies directly below where he says "as this is my talkpage, i reserve the right to remove comments as it's my space" (emphasis by me). It isn't "his space", it's the Wikimedia foundation's space. It's appalling that admins here are once again downplaying the proven (and in Jakezing's case all but self-professed) unwillingness to collaborate with others. FWIW, he's gaming the sytem by utilising the leeway the talk page guidelines afford user's with respect to "their own" user talk page to deliberately turn away and offend others. A stern warning is in order, and a ban if he continues. Nothing less. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 78.34.134.173 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You actually brought this to AN/I. You could have been editing the encyclopedia productively. *sighs* What a complete waste of time.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I did. Problems shouldn't be ignored. No need to be a dick about it. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Friday. What's Friday without a little pre-weekend dramarama? -t BMW c- 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We typically give users a lot of leeway in their User space, but not to the extent of changing guidelines, or mis-representing them. Any innocent or ignorant user visiting that User Talk page is going to be badly misled. They may be discouraged from discussing editorial issues, or from editing altogether... or they may decide to go and set up their own rules on their own Talk page. None of this is consistent with an open collegiate editing environment where everyone is expected to follow the same guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does seem this editor does have a large chip on his shoulder for whatever reason. I don't know why people can't edit positively. It's a hobby afterall, and such people make the atmosphere really unpleasant. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up not because it effects me, but it effects other users. I am really disappointed by the response by other editors. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to those evaluating Jakezing's conduct: In this edit, User:Jakezing claims to be User:cody6, who was indef-blocked for incivility, later unblocked, by User:Mercury. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Talking about me? Hurray. Most people don't seem to care; I like and hate that about authority.--Jakezing (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is the kind of attitude people are referring to. If you know the rules, why are you behaving like you don't? Far be it from me to poke the bear, but edits like this one, made just over a fortnight ago, clearly demonstrate an attitude far beyond incivility. Your rules meant precisely dick, as far as the rest of were are concerned. Tone it down, simply. Your behaviour is not pleasant to say the very least. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (amended 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Need to check on TV episode articles and chronical copyright violations

Hellevision123 (talk · contribs) and 71.48.128.72 (talk · contribs) have been violating WP:COPYVIO policy for months as copy-pasting TV episodes from news, or official websites, or forums. See User talk:Hellevision123#October 2008. I wonder the two are the same person, or I just dig up just tiny portion of gigantic rotten root by many editors wrongly contributing to such articles. I could not check every contribution of them, so if necessary, checkuser would help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lacking checkuser 'fu, the best I can do is keep an eye on some of the articles that have been problematic. If we presume they are separate users, I see that each has not contributed copyrighted material since receiving the template copyright warning. If copyright issues persist, stronger action may be necessary. It's obvious that the IP is stable, so a block is possible if required. (Note that it's common to advise editors if they are under discussion here; I will notify accordingly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Intervention welcomed

Intervention welcomed with Redthoreau (talk · contribs) and Damiens.rf (talk · contribs). Please, someone do something (even if it is to block both of us!!!). User has shown motivation to keep going... --Damiens.rf 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See evidence removal: [3] --Damiens.rf 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes admins please do something (as I have continually pleaded for all day in edit diffs). Damiens, seems to be on an irrational anti-quote crusade to delete all quotes he finds on pages I have worked on. He first claimed that no quotes were allowed at all, however once he was shown that they were under wiki policy, now he calls quotes “decoration” and uses a shifting premise of “bad form”, too “beautiful” (your confusion matches mine), or “glorification” (he utilizes them interchangeably as he 10RR edit wars with me throughout the lands of wiki.) Some assistance and clarification from other editors towards Damiens would be helpful in possibly alleviating his anti-quote fanaticism (which I seem unable to properly squelch). He has made it a hobby the last few days to find articles I have worked on, and delete all the quotes on those articles (sometimes just a single quote, which he will then call excessive use of them), knowing that I have added them. This has created an endless repeating edit war, as he also refuses to utilize the talk page for discussion (somehting I have tried to get him to do), but he refuses ... stating that I “don’t own pages” (I agree, however he then acts as if he does) or that I “didn’t justify including them” (months ago, as they remained unchallenged), thus he doesn’t have to justify hastily deleting them. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My first thoughts on this are hum, my second thought on this is that user Damiens.rf should be blocked, all I see is him playing the clown and removing sourced useful material from articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the contribs of both of them, I think that both are edit-warring irresponsibly, and a block of both would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau (who I don't know and have never interacted with) is editing warring but frankly he's editing warring with a troll and a vandal who seems to be removing sourced content from articles and is intend on BLP vios (such as adding pictures of politicians to the waiter article). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I insist there's no offense in adding the picture of Australian Premier John Bannon dressed as a waiter to the Waiter article... unless one believes it's an offense to think someone is a waiter. Also, I'm not for removal of encyclopedic sourced content. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for grossly violating WP:3RR. In the last 24 hours: Damiens reverted 4 times on Waiting staff, Red reverted 3; Damiens reverted 4 times on Table service, Red reverted 3; on Che (film), Red reverted 11 times, Damien 10; on Alberto Korda both reverted 9 times; on Camilo Cienfuegos, both reverted 11 times; on Che Guevara (photo) both reverted 12 times. Both users have been around long enough to know about the three revert rule. --Smashville^talk 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that Redthoreau has 3 previous blocks for 3RR violations, last one in July for 1 week. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that 20RR is never an entitlement, good blocks. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's edits need to be looked at by people on this board. I'm not saying that they are all bad but this is clearly trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolling maybe, but he does have a legitimate point, even if it's unintentional. There is nothing on that image description explaining why it is public domain. Yes, it's a photo of a bridge which appears not to be finished. According to ye olde unreliable source Wikipedia, it is specifically the Paterson railway bridge which was built in 1910, which being earlier than 1955 makes it public domain. Now if only the image page provided some way for readers to verify the identity and age of the bridge we could establish the impossibility that it is still copyright-protected and avoid this discussion completely. We could also explain whether we scanned it from a book or an old newspaper or found it on the Internet. We might even go so far as, I don't know... crediting the photographer maybe? If we can find a name, it is generally a respectful thing to include, even for public domain material produced by people who are very likely deceased. — CharlotteWebb 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But while we are doing that there is no need to put a delete template on the picture. He did this and that's why I say he is trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You know it's likely that noone will care to fix the image unless asked for. If you're against Wikipedia process for treating unsourced conent, you should try to change the process itself, instead of using your administrative prestige to ignore it. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way [4] and he is also editing against policies. Please take this into account for the next block. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We saw him at the Austrlaian project a number of months ago where he seemed to have an obsession with getting images deleted. Some of the text of the nominations was just straight out nasty. Orderinchaos 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just images. I'm still bewildered at his attempts to hit Jessica Valenti with a notability tag on the basis that her publisher (a well-established feminist imprint of a major publishing company) was a "vanity press", even well after he'd been informed that he was very wrong about that. Rebecca (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Has violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. Paul Austin (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did that occur? (Not denying it did, just requesting verification) Orderinchaos 09:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Where did that occur? Could you substantiate this accusation? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you're being disingenuous. Whaytou call "obsession with getting images deleted", others would call "application of police", since 99% of the images I've nominated for deletion end up being deleted anyway (mostly non-free pictures of living politicians). --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I don't understand how the diff you provided can be interpreted as "Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way". That diff shows me un-reverting a revert that User:Redthoreau did to List_of_Lebanese_people when he decided to follow-and-revert my edits to articles unrelated to our existing dispute (we were indeed edit-warring over che-guevara related article, when he decided to follow and revert me in articles he had never edited before [5] [6] [7] [8]). And my original edit he reverted in this article was just an uncontroversial removal of red-links from a list. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf edits should be looked at seriously and if this is possible (i dont know much about wikipedia) he should be asked about his links with (or against) Lebanon. He is "maintaining" the "list of Lebanese people" in a way that is very weird. Is he adminstrator in charge of this page? If this is the case, he should be discharged because either he knows nothing about Lebanese people or he has subtle bias. On the other hand, I suspect him to use multiple accouts in edit wars in order to lead to conflicts and blocks and things like that.

What have I done to this list other than removing red-links? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reposting personal information by User:Tony1

I decided to stop arguing with User:Tony1 on Wikipedia, and took the conversation to bugzilla instead, where I figured I could speak more freely and keep the vitriol off this site. User:Tony1 has decided to re-post comments on this site that I've made elsewhere, which I'm fairly certain is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, and is borderline illegal. Please make sure he is aware of the wrongness of his actions. Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a while, but whatever the appropriate response is (according to policy/precedence) I'm fine with. I don't plan on discussing these topics AT ALL on Wikipedia any longer, since I am unable to constructively discuss things with some of the people here.

See [9] --UC_Bill (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What? You engage in nasty personal attack elsewhere, admit the fact, and then moan when you are taken to task for them, and demand the person you attacked is punished? Forget for a moment who posted what where, and ask yourself who is behaving like an asshole here? (See m:Dick)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Tony telling other editors what you'd said there. If you make similar remarks on Wikipedia we'll show you to the door so fast you'll get whiplash. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Meh. You called him names on Bugzilla, he quoted on you here. I'm trying very hard to get worked up about this "borderline illegal" action, but I just can't. I will note that I don't think the purpose of Bugzilla is to provide a forum for calling other users childish name without fear of blocking. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is stuff posted on another WMF-site, so it is fair game for quoting here. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark as resolved? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with resolved tag; are you sure we're done?) Unless we want to discuss UC Bill's behavior, with an eye towards preventing it from occuring on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily buy the "it wasn't technically, actually on Wikipedia, so you can't do anything to me" argument. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia sanction for filing an incredibly stupid complaint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We need some sort of 'pointing and laughing at you' template. HalfShadow 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TROUT --Smashville^talk 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they create a minor noticeboard and name it after you. — CharlotteWebb 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Even better...--Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is being pissed off about re-posting of outside correspondence stupid? User:MBisanz's comment about the material coming from another WMF site is the only relevant comment here. If I'd called Tony an unflattering name in pretty much any other forum, then his reposting of it here would constitute harassment and could be prosecuted, and would be grounds for banning him from WP. I've already stopped posting to any of the MOS/date discussions and will just drop all of this entirely now. Thanks for nothing. --UC_Bill (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what country you can get prosecuted for getting called an asshole, but I haven't heard of it. This isn't WP:AN-Whaaaambulance. --Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've given User:Sapphic a warning for calling Tony1 an asshole on wiki. Some translation required SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you people are really something else. You not only openly mock me, but also start tracking down people I'm friends with so you can taunt them as well? I think you're missing the whole point of wp:civil and focusing on the technicalities. There are plenty of ways of being a wp:dick without using foul language, and not all cases of using foul language or name-calling constitute serious attacks. What you've taught me in this case is to never trust the admins again, and to stop trying to use official channels to resolve issues. Great example you're setting, really. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Did SheffieldSteel not see the edit summary[10] of UC Bill that caused Sapphic to make that comment? Seems to me Saphhic was merely agreeing with UC Bill, who did not get a civility warning, and has unfairly caught some of the crossfire here. SpinningSpark 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, I didn't see that edit comment. I read User talk:UC Bill and noticed the remark by Sapphic. No tracking down, no harassment, just a warning for incivility, which I thought would be the end of the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You called someone an asshole and they called you out on it. And you reported them to ANI because you called them an asshole. --Smashville^talk 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony reposted comments from a completely different website, and attributed them to Bill. That's really not cool, regardless of what those comments were. Bill's personal email address is available through the bugzilla interface, and now that connection to his Wikipedia account has been advertised more widely by Tony's actions. Yeah, Bill was being a dick (which is actually rare for him.. I happen to know him in real life and I'm usually the crude one when we talk :) but that doesn't excuse Tony's behavior. And yeah, if somebody had wanted to look into it they could have made the connection between the two accounts themselves.. but now that's been done for them. I don't get why some of you seem intent on provoking somebody who's clearly upset about a perceived loss of privacy. I'll talk to him in person and make sure things are fine. --Sapphic (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User UC_Bill's own complaint that initiated this section indicates that he brought this upon himself. Hence the ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but is "ridicule" the correct response? - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a better idea? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this section would be a good candidate for the wikipedia joke page. The guy outs himself and then complains about it. You can't make this stuff up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply, I agree that bringing it here was a mistake - after all, we've got a policy on off-wiki harrasment. However, it could have reasonably ended after the thread was marked as resolved: the comments after that just seem out of place and unnecessary. And yes, I'm aware that anyone accusing someone else of harassment should be prepared to have their own actions looked into, but it should still be civil and appropriate. Seriously - I was really surprised to see you say that it was ok to ridicule another user. I would have thought that it was simply never ok to do so, and that there are better ways of resolving things. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The user Barneca, who is an admin, effectively re-opened the discussion. When a user brings a complaint here and gets hoist by his own petard, it's a good source of comic relief. And to be technical, what's being ridiculed is the complaining user's activities. Ridicule drives home a point much better than patting on the head, although I'm still not convinced that UC_Bill understands the irony of it all. He went to another website where he apparently figured he could be uncivil without reproach, and then got caught and complained about it here. Maybe some sympathetic admin could shrink-wrap this section and say "enough, Aldretti". But that hasn't happened yet. Maybe the issue is still considered "open" by some admins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - you see it differently to me. I'm not inclined to agree - my feeling is still that there are much better ways of making a point - but that happens. And I willingly accept that there is a difference between ridiculing the actions and the person. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

←I just wanted to note that "taking it outside" doesn't necessarily invalidate it as a concern here. Please see Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment. This would suggest that the harassment was actually yours, in pursuing him outside of Wiki space with a personal attack to begin with. Even when done off-wiki, harassing other users can lead to your being blocked or banned. While his reposting your message here may have been a problem by Wikipedia:OUTING#Private correspondence (I've never used Bugzilla and do not know the degree of presumption of privacy in messages sent via that forum), it clearly wasn't intended to harass you, but to call you to account for your incivility. (Note that your message was also a violation of Bugzilla etiquette.) What he probably should have done with it was notify the arbitration committee, but it's very difficult to get up in arms about his violation of your rights as a Wikipedian when it rises from your violation of his. No matter how strongly you disagree with somebody's behavior on Wikipedia, you need to abide by the civility policy and handle your disputes through official channels. That said, I'm inclined to think that Tony's posting of your message should be removed, also according to official policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well-stated. However, on that last point, maybe - provided the complaining user understands the problem that he caused, which is not at all evident at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is Bugzilla "private correspondence"? I have just checked and I can succeed in getting everyones e-mail address without logging in to my account. That makes it openly public in my book. Probably shouldn't be like that, but it is. SpinningSpark 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's no presumption of privacy, then there may be no problem with reposting it. As I said, I'm not familiar with the environment. I'm not remotely "tech". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thread in question on Bugzilla. You should find that you can read the thread and e-mail any of the participants without creating an account. I don't recommend you read all of it though, there cannot be many things that are more mind numbing than a thread that has been going on for nearly three years on the subject of the technicalities of date formatting. If you want to read the relevant parts I suggest scrolling to the bottom then come up a day or two. SpinningSpark 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility concern

Can an uninvolved admin (ie. not me) take a look at this, please? Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what? You can't expect us to sift through two solid pages of text, looking for your civility concern... :-) Give us some hints. Tan | 39 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see several users who are not being very civil with one another. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Um.... Start with everything and anything User:Saintvlas22/User:24.83.177.183 has said. Skip around all you want. --Masamage ♫ 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not actual incivility, I just see disagreement and bitterness at how wikipedia is merging fancruft fan articles. About the upper half of the thread:

"since their royal Wikipedia highness' have decreed in their own heads and through idiocy of the Wikipedia policies that [the article] will no longer exist, (...) their reasoning is faulty and their explanation lacking much fairness or common sense, at least to normal people. (...) So sorry if I'm not all sunshine and daisy's when addressing them - idiots deserve to be spoken to like idiots if that's how they want to act willingly"[11] "Well then, if I am a MASSIVE idiot, does that mean that I can at least join the club now?" [12]

Followed by a long rant on how WP:N is illogical and unfair to fictional characters, and how character articles should be written in-universe "so that there is insight gleaned into their roles, characters and traits" [13], complaints that characters with a huge role on the series get only a crappy paragraph on a list with "real-world" stuff and lots of complaint on how wikipedia rules are stupid, not based on reason, etc [14]

This user is just venting his frustration at how wikipedia works. Just warn him that he is cluttering the talk page of an article, and to bring it to Wikipedia:Village pump, WT:N or to talk pages.

P.D.: wow, the discussion goes downhill by the end of the thread. I have collapsed it and told people to bring it somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We have the WikiQuette Alarts which is ideal for this sort of problem. It is best to avoid ANI unless some sort of administrative action is required. When filing a report please provide diffs. Many thanks. I am marking this resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not resolved. I am an administrator struggling with whether or not to block somebody who, incidentally, has just made another post calling me an idiot to my face when I have been nothing but polite. I need somebody else's help. And, again, here is your list of diffs. --Masamage ♫ 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

i assume someone is going to block me? Instantly defining me as a troll seems kind of the easy way out isn't it? Have I not raised any concerns that are valid - at least not to you I suppose. I find it's quite schoolyard bullying tactics when you paraphrase the arguments I have made so you paint the ideal picture you want of me - that I am a hounding, rabid 'fan' who detests rules of any kind. If you want a fair argument, I guess I was right in thinking this isn't the place for it. You've already decided what you want, so I guess i should just wait and take it, as usual. Saintvlas22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't paraphrased anything. I have provided links and asked other people to look into the matter. And as I've said repeatedly (so why bother again? I don't know) your concerns are perfectly valid and many people share them. --Masamage ♫ 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear you just fine - I just have a hard time processing the fact that you claim to find certain rules senseless and stupid, yet you continue to abide by them for no other reason then that they're rules. It's not 'rules are rules; you continue to mention that things can be changed, yet you obviously make no intention of taking any steps toward said change, since you're fine in going with the flow for whatever reason instead of doing something about it. This is why I cited insincerity in you - you do something you said you didn't really believe in, yet you turn around and do a fine good job of enforcing rules that you backtracked and said were needless anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC) P.S: Not sure if I should post here, but you'll probably just delete this anyways on your page so i wouldn't know if you got it.

Like everywhere else, you can post here all you want as long as you're not disruptive.

You're right that I think certain rules are stupid, but actually, the ones I dislike are not the same as the ones you dislike. I'm following these particular rules--notability and so on--because I happen to agree with them. You don't have to, and again, you're welcome to argue the point in the correct location. --Masamage ♫ 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline has it's merits, but it obviously needs to change it's stance in regards to fictional works. Again, I am sure we both know I won't get anywhere arguing my point in the Village Pump - you're also going to compress everything in the Wikimoon articles together anyways, so whatever I say is moot. This wheels back once again to why you asked if there were objections if you weren't going to listen anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried giving Saintvlas22 the benefit of the doubt, but he has also made personal attacks on several user talk pages outside of that discussion and refuses to stop.[15][16] Ironically enough, I tried to be a voice of reason in here, and left both Saintvlas22 and Jujube warnings for their incivility asking them step back and calm down. In the end, I got attacked for it as well[17]. Both he and JuJube are continuing to go at each other on the Talk:Death Busters page and its really disrupting the entire discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from posting on the Death Busters' talk page - I see that it has pretty much degenerated into an extremely off topic discussion of basically nothing. I apologize for disrupting the page in that sense, my own opinions and previously expressed views not withstanding. And Collectonian, you were not 'attacked'; I only pointed out that I find it hard to believe you can act as a neutral party when you have already clearly expressed your opinion on me in the negative. If we are going for your criteria on what a verbal jab is, then you have already committed one yourself by referring to me as you did to JuJube. This is where my doubt about your ability to act as a neutral party comes from; I am not being unreasonable as you would like to think, I am simply alerting you of my concern and would ask that you refrain from turning it into something else that you have so conveniently excluded yourself from. Saintvlas22 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[18][19] You have been far from civil in both of those diffs. This is part of an overall pattern of attacking editors who disagree with you instead of making sound arguments to support your points. It also doesn't help you when you open by declaring that other editors are acting in bad faith if they disagree with you in your initial comments. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of those are in responses that Collectonian and JuJube left me - responses left on our personal pages, as was requested. Again, I am the only one being singled out as far as I can tell - those responses were not mine solely, as I obviously had to have had another person to respond to. My point was that any attempts I tried to get my own point across was met with not just resistance, but utter dismissal. A call for objection was had, and I answered. Though I was less than pleasant, I was not uncivil - I did not instantly go into the foray in a fit of hostility as you imply. I stated my objections, and only reacted with actual hostility when I was blatantly provoked. Saintvlas22 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to take it to talk did not mean you guys should both keep making personal attacks, nor does that make it okay for you to turn around and attack me too. And yes, you are making personal attacks, lots of them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last I'll say on this issue, then I'm done. Saintvlas22's behavior is obviously exceedingly terrible to everyone except him. He justifies his behavior by saying "I'll say what if I say, and if anyone is offended, tough". I guess it's the fact that he's riding Masamage, an admin I've never seen be anything but civil, so hard that made me RAGE. There's a point where WP:AGF goes out the window and it's clear that an editor is trying to rile things up for the sake of making some point about "lol wikipedia = communism" and it's pretty clear here. You could do a non-indef block on him in the spirit of policy, but I don't think this is an editor who's here to do anything but waste everyone's time. Okay, that's all. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we have all wasted our time - at least you guys get what you think is 'Wikipedia standard'. The article I objected to from being merged is getting shafted like so many other articles, so at least you have that. And no, I am not here just to waste time (i.e, a troll as you are implying), I am here to edit and do some good. Your analogy of Wikipedia = communism is actually a good one, surprisingly. There isn't any laughing matter about it though - it plain sucks, and serves as being pretty unfair when nobody but the select few who deem themselves worthy can do anything worthwhile here, at least not without them 'allowing' it. It also wouldn't do for you to break your precious policies either just for me; but I guess you could get away with it, since you'll probably be excused just because this seems to a private club. Saintvlas22 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sainvlas22, while I have considerable sympathy for your point of view about these articles, this isn't an effective way to go around promoting it. Calm restrained argument will be taken more seriously than general attacks. The ways to show that consensus might be changing are to discuss concisely on the appropriate policy talk pages or on individual article pages, and see if others take up your argument. Additional vehemence is less, not more, convincing. But, as a frequent supporter of these articles, I advisee you that the most important thing you could do right now to help is to try seriously to find what discussions of plot and characters do exist and can be used as sources--it can be done in a surprising number of cases. Even if everyone agreed with you, it would still be much better to actually have the sources for these as for all articles. And for those who will never agree with you (or me), even they will accept articles with sufficient sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP Problems

Resolved

 – Article deleted at AfD after WP:SNOW close. --MCB (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I want a second opinion here, before I start blanking 90% of an article... Is Michael Guglielmucci rife with BLP problems? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article arguably shouldn't exist under WP:BLP1E (unless there's some indication that he's notable by reason of his preaching or songwriting, notwithstanding the cancer hoax), but other than that it doesn't look too bad. It's about as balanced as an article like this can be, I think (which is why we try to avoid having articles like that), and contentious stuff looks to be reliably sourced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sarcasticidealist - the claims made are sourced, the sources seem reliable and accurately reported in the article, but BLP1E seems to indicate that the reasoning for having an article at all is somewhat questionable. I'd suggest leaving it alone content wise but AFD the article under BLP1E. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, AFD it. That's a prime example (IMHO) of the sort of article that brings wikipedia into disrepute. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What really brings us into disrepute is unreferenced negative stuff, and especially unreferenced FALSE negative stuff. This was not unreferenced and appears to be true. We are sensitive to negative biographical stuff in general (lots of "reason behind" reasoning associated with WP:BLP etc), but this is only bad, not horrible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I disagree, it's a tittle-tattle article that has no place in an encyclopaedia - but that's an argument for a different place ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD started here. Tan | 39 00:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page selective trimming during a block

User:Guido den Broeder currently blocked by myself for 1month for repeated edit warring (3 unblock requests rejected). As per previous occasions, starting to selectively deleting out postings he dislikes. Whilst of course he is quite entitled to remove block-notice/discussion threads after the end of the block, he has been repeatedly advised in the past not to selectively remove postings during the time that a block is in effect (as makes it almost impossible for any other editors or admins to then review what discussions held, and to gain true impression of his ability to show willingness to reflect during a block on his actions and indicate how he will or wont work more collaboratively afterwards).

On this occassion initial deletion [20] with my warning [21]. Now has trimed [22] and [23]. I have reverted these once with edit summary concluding "...Else risk blocked from your talk page"[24] which in turn been reverted by him with "rv - do not editwar on my talk page and do not alter my talk"[25]. I'm not going to personally pursue this further (WP:1RR and 'cos I'm the blocking admin), but could other uninvolved admin comment on this:

• was I wrong to try and revert the talk page pruning?
• given past such talk-page ownership action during blocks, is he wise to so prune ?
• and does any of this warrent him being userpage-blocked too or is that just excessive notwithsatnding this is his 3rd block for edit warring which he continues to deny ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING - exerpt:

Important exceptions may include declined unblock requests (while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about blocks and sockpuppetry.

Removing the block notice itself is generally ok. The block reason in the block, and the talk page history version the blocker edits with the block notice in it, are always available for review later if need be. You were technically wrong to do that - no serious harm, no foul, just leave him alone and it should be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he should be deleting without archiving, but then it isn't right to revert him either. I think maybe there's an unspoken assumption that this trimming is a prelude to an unblock request. If so, it might be best to just watchlist the page and wait. After all, you should be the first port of call for an admin reviewing any future unblock request. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He can't archive while blocked, can he? Because the only page he can update is his own talk page, right? Often when someone gets blocked they get angry and they vent for awhile by messing with their talk page. Sometimes they get extremely uncivil, sometimes they delete stuff. Lashing out at others can result in protecting their talk page. Merely chopping stuff is relatively harmless behavior. In any case, it's best to leave someone's talk page alone when they're blocked, except to deal with extreme behavior, and only an admin should do that. That's my 2 or 3 cents worth. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he can - I think it works for talk page subpages as well, though I am not going to block myself to test it right now.

Back on the main topic - There are lots of reasons to clear a talk page. Including being embarrassed about having been warned or blocked, and not wanting to have the warnings there to remind you. For someone who stops being a problem, there is no point to keeping the warnings there - they got the message. If they remain a problem, admins should know to check the block log and history of the talk page in the investigation (you all do, right? Right? Buehler?). If someone is gaming the system, for example removing warnings or block notices and then complaining about not being warned, then that's just disruptive and they can be held accountable for that (locked talk page for block duration, etc). But it's blatantly easy to see when they do that just by basic checking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you can't edit talk subpages while blocked. I just tested it by blocking my sockpuppet and was unable to edit anything other than my actual talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for quick replies, all duly noted and I'll back off and let he do as he chooses for now on his talk page :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible image licensing issues (2)

HotelRoom (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of images using improbable public domain licenses for commercial images. I listed one at PUI, but realized that a more comprehensive approach would aid this situation. User:HotelRoom has a few suspected sock puppet tags on his user page and a history of image issues on his talk page. Any chance someone here feels like looking into it further? -- Suntag ☼ 05:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of those seem pretty old. Not saying they are all kosher, but the vast majoirty of the uploaded images are over a few months old. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The images have no source and it might be appropriate to tag them as having no source info. Image:Cikker.gif has leaked onto commons. MER-C 06:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is down

Resolved

 – TW and HG are back up. --Dynaflow babble 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle seems to have gone dark, just in time for the Friday night drunks (Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle not working?). Anybody have AzaToth's number? --Dynaflow babble 07:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And, I think after 1 quick test on the way out of the house, WP:Friendly is also down. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is down, too - I can do one revert after which it claims I have been logged out and does not deliver warnings to vandals. There is a related discussion on VPT. A recent software change caused problems, some API modules were disabled, and that has brought down both Twinkle and Huggle. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, during this entire time, I have had no problems with Twinkle. Oh well :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 21:00

Need help undoing move vandalism

Resolved

 – all cleaned up -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleinax0x0 (talk · contribs) has done some vandalism by moving a page around to the extent that an administrator will have to undo it. __meco (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking through this user's edit history, it looks like s/he might be more confused than anything else; I don't think I would characterize this as vandalism. S/he seems to have been working on an article (which admittedly probably would have been A7'ed) and then just seems to have blundered around with it trying to post it up. Can someone who can see the deleted article figure out if what this person was doing was done in good faith? If so, we may want to remove the warnings and such from his or her Talk page and try to educate him or her, rather than scare the would-be contributor off. --Dynaflow babble 08:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive, but not vandalism. The page was about the same model (see Image:Victor.png) and eventually ended up at XdOpe, which explains why that particular page was copied and moved around. Looks like a newbie. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the user's warnings and put up the standard-issue welcome template. --Dynaflow babble 09:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer prefered Lewinsky (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This user has been making some slightly odd edits. I *think* these are simply misguided but I wanted to see what others thought as they *could* possibly be a violation of BLP or the username policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

i.e. [26] --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass changes to articles in the UK changing "village" to "town"

I and a few others have asked User:Sarumio on User talk:Sarumio#Villages > Towns about a very large number of edits in which typically articles have the word "village" in them changed to "town". Some problems with these are given in the talk page discussion I have already given the link to. A glance at the User contributions of Sarumio shows that the list is extensive, includes various "List of..." articles, and has happened so quickly that, given the errors already discovered, it seems likely that these changes have been made without any real check as to whether they are appropriate or not. Since I have already asked Sarumio about this, I'm asking if a different, non-involved admin. can take a look at this, and investigate whether and if a mass-revert of the edits would be in order (I'm not sure how this is achieved.) Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: It appears that he is now saying that he was eliminating contradictions (though he added one in the case of Malpas, Cheshire) and drawing them to our attention. I must say this is not a good way to do this, as the sheer number of articles this has been done to makes the issue almost unmanageable. In my opinion, he should have collated the articles together and posted a message about the problems on one or more relevant and active project, such as WT:UKGEO.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He apparently wasn't checking to see which was correct if that is what he thought he was doing. There have been similar complaints about this editor in the past. In this case, the 3rd article I checked was a village and he'd changed it to a town. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted on his talk page, anyone who has worked with UK settlements in detail would have realised that fewer errors would have resulted if all inconsistencies had been resolved by changing the entries all to "village", but that wouldn't have been a good way to proceed, either. Far better to draw up a list of them, post them to an appropriate active project, and then systematically work through them to determine what was the verifiably correct information, possibly with the assistance of others who I am very sure would be happy to help.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Spilsby this editor changed Keal Cotes and West Keal from villages to towns although neither village has ever had more than 200 inhabitants and have never received a Royal Charter as a town. The changes may well be good faith rather than vandalism, but they are ill researched, un-discussed, random and wholesale and are causing many people a great deal of work correcting the mayhem. The effect is scatter-gun editing. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

School of Law, Christ University

122.167.137.151 (talk · contribs) has been rather single mindedly re-adding content that is POV, unsourced and better suited for the talk page. Communication has failed, and I've resorted to a 3RR warning as he's certainly in technical violation. Perhaps someone could better explain things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi'ed the page for one week, and username blocked ChristUniversity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GooglePedia12

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) has been busy adding unreferenced content (not a crime, but he puts it back in when reverted), creating some odd articles (please take a look), and deleting text at Talk:Vomiting. The first time I just restored it, but he came back and deleted more text, adding an edit written to make it look as though it was written by an administrator. [27] I've blocked him for 31 hours - can someone please review this and see if the block is ok, and suggest anything else that might be usefully done? I'm not too happy with what he's done with Jewish Arabs and am trying to figure out if his newest article has any validity. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that your actions were correct. If that block you imposed had been a longer one (think a week or more), I might take issue with that kind of punishment. But impersonating an admin, constantly adding and re-adding unreferenced material, and deleting content from a talk page is enough to warrant a short-term block. "I contested the relevance of the user's section because it had nothing to do with the article ... Dougweller has abused his power by blocking me. Clearly, it was none of his business and I would like to contest his right to block me."[28] This all seems irrational, given that it is administrators' duty to deal with instances such as this. The block was warranted, very much so. I can't imagine that he'll change, but perhaps giving him some advice as to how to correctly add content and how to explain rationales would help. --tennisman 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see someone has responded to him saying the block was correct, and he's deleted that. Which is not promising. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It only gets worse, now he's attacking another editor writing

"Problem report: MBisanz MBisanz has deleted my "mongol jews" page and called it incoherrent nonsense. MBisanz, you mind your own pathetic rubbish business, stop annoying me, and leave me alone!".

Very nicely in a box I might add. A quick learner? Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well not that nicely because he didn't close the box. Also a bit strange that MBisanz called an essentially empty page "incoherent nonsense" when deleting it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

With the weird way he had done the heading formatting, it look like nonsense, although test and no-context also could have applied. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it myself as i need to go offline now and so can't watch his edits, but i think there has been some newbie biting going on here. As far as I can no one has actually tried talking to him about things, (except via edit summaries and by templating his talk page, which is no way to communicate). My impression is that he isn't as unreasonable as people think. He has apologised for his actions after all and he responded to my request for civility. So I think the block probably isn't necessary, but someone should take him under their wing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him, given him a Welcome template (I'd tried earlier with Twinkle and failed, so found the manual one), and wrote him a note. I hope this helps. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've recreated Mongol Jews as a redirect to Khazars, since it's a vaguely plausible redirect. It probably wants at least temporary protection, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should have unblocked. So far, (recalling that his reason for impersonating an admin seems to be that he wants to be an Admin), a post has been made on his page by new user, only edit, nominating him (doesn't say for what), he's created an article ITunes Applications with no sources after I carefully pointed out he should create articles in his own userspace and source them first - and in any case ITunes is an application, the article doesn't make sense. He's turned Jewish Arabs which was a redirect back into an article (again), and there is still Pasha (Quran) which isn't sourced and for which I can find no source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

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

First post to GooglePedia12's talkpage asking if he wants to be "nominated" for something? Checkuser? Block as blatent sock? D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes me sad for some reason... Arakunem^Talk 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Terryola asking rather fishy questions

I just noticed new user Terryola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asking why he couldn't post new articles about National Register of Historic Places properties in Westchester County, New York. (See this edit to User talk:Doncram and this edit to Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York. Oddly enough, they're all about places in New Rochelle, New York, the same places that heavily-banned Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has expressed an interest in. It seems kind of fishy that a new user is asking why a banned user can't post new articles, and then contributes the entire stub content. I'm smelling a sockpuppet, but I might be a little suspicious. Does anyone want to persuade me in one direction or the other? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs themselves wouldn't be by themselves suspicious, but his third edit was to create a page of useful links that includes links to pages most new users wouldn't know about. Something about this user smells--but is it the odor of a sock? Might be Checkuser time. Blueboy96 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK case. Jvolkblum sometimes makes a list of useful stuff on his socks. Also, he added an image to an article[29] that was uploaded by a sock that is part of a checkuser-confirmed sockfarm that has been linked to Jvolkblum based on behaviour. Block him already :P --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That diff was enough for me. Sockblocked. Blueboy96 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked sleepers UnclePhilB (talk · contribs), MiltyMilt (talk · contribs), Billsrole (talk · contribs), RIMtechs (talk · contribs) and Klamfph (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal from 118.137.x.x range showed up again

Earlier this month I reported a persistent vandal on the 118.137.x.x range and that range was blocked for three months by User:Nihonjoe. However, the user has shown up again, this time as 61.247.11.106 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) and continues to do the same stuff that got him block (vandalism that implies American companies own Japanese animation studios). Requesting another block of this user. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User Crazyaboutlost - persecution

Resolved

 – User warned; is now inactive

I'd like you to know that user Crazyaboutlost has started today a bad-faith persecution to my contributions in several articles:Carmen Miranda, Portuguese Brazilian, Ethnic groups in Brazil, Brazilian people, University of São Paulo, Italian Brazilian, Afro-Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, Oizumi, Gunma, Rio de Janeiro, among others.

I already had problems with this user, who likes to chase others. He seems to be trying to destabilize the articles creating an edit-war or vandalize what I do. Please, may you help me? Opinoso (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User warned. Watch the edit warring yourself! Tan | 39 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinoso has been blocked for three months from portuguese wikipedia. He is the vandal. Look at my editions and see that I'm correcting his mistakes. [Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Brazilian&diff=247636672&oldid=247590706], for example.Crazyaboutlost (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.167.244.204

I've posted enough about this guy, the last time is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive485#IP_76.167.244.204. This is a self-admitted sock [30] of Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) (and Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)). When the IP sock was blocked, he asked for account creation to be enabled [31]. When no answer was forth-coming, he basically admitted that he is going to wait until the two-week block is over, and continue his behaviour [32]. When one week of that block elapsed, he posted a "count down" [33]. Now with four days remaining in his block, he's posting yet more [34].

Now, the last time I posted this, I was basically scorned, saying "oh he's posting in the heat of the block, you don't know what you're talking about". So here is my last attempt, before I say WTF? Here is a blatantly disruptive user, who's been blocked four times. And now, during a two-week block, he's admitting that when the block expires, disruption will continue? No, nevermind the last attempt, here it is: WTF? Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to block some IPs indefinitely, generally that's frowned upon. Other than the countdown, which everyone should just ignore, wait till the block is over, if there's disruption, block again. It's not that big of a deal, and it's not like there's going to be any kind of permanent damage done by extending the block before it's over. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then tell you what: you deal with it on Tuesday. I've asked until I'm blue in the face for help with this guy, and I get the runaround. Seeya Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed this and found the comments sufficient to block for a further 10 days; the intent is either to disrupt the encyclopedia or to cause a person to believe that they will do so, which is itself disruptive, so I have in effect reset the block. Of course, if they learn not to broadcast their intent then it will be a case that the block will expire and we shall have to deal with whatever then occurs, but we (or specifically, Yngarr) do not have to concern ourselves about it for a fortnight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Moleman is indefblocked, why only 10 days for his IP? I know we can't indefblock IP's but why not block for say 6 months? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to be dynamically allocated; most likely, someone else is already on that IP address, and Moleman is on something else. If not now, he will be within 10 days. Blocking the IP for more than a week or so wouldn't do any good stopping him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but remember that he didn't even realise that he could edit without creating an account until recently! He's not the sharpest tool in the box, and may well not know what he would need to do to make that happen. I mean he kept the same address for a week after all. Obviously I'm following BEANS here but I'd say a longish block is worth a try for the block message alone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

When blocking ip's I generally err on the side of caution (blocking again is an easy task) and rather than look through the address tools - which bewilder me anyway - I look to see how long they have been obviously editing from that address and take it forward, or (as in this case) I follow the lead of the last blocker and re-enact that. Of course, if they are that dull, I could always block short but tell them it was for a long time... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If Moleman is on another IP address, then why is he posting from that IP address, to that IP talk page? Cable modem providers assign DHCP addresses based on the MAC address. Since the MAC address doesn't change (there are ways to force a change which are beyond the scope of this discussion, but if you wish to talk, feel free to drop me a talk note, since I actually do work on this stuff to pay my bills), there is a high likelyhood of him acquiring and maintaining that IP address for a very long period of time. And how does one know this is a cable modem provider? Using the whois for this IP address. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why someone just didn't protect the IP's talk page for three more days. He probably won't know what's going on and the limited protection will keep him from baiting people. We'll see in a few days if the IP rotates or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Scarian

Can somebody review the conversation between myself and User:Scarian please. He edit warred with User:WesleyDodds, fair enough, but then templated him in a childish way. I told Wesley to ignore him, like about a week ago, and was given this just now. I replied in a frank manner admittadily,[35], [36] but was responded to by this and this. Oh dear. User is pretending to be an admin, and has written on his user page For queer haters everywhere: [1]) My name is Pat, I am an English and Swedish speaking Wikipedia administrator from England.. Hmm. Thanks, guys. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, without commenting on the substance of it, he's not pretending to be an admin, as he is an admin - see this. _Gb^T/c 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Never edit warred with Wesley Dodds. 2) Wesley Dodds was editing warring with other users as recently as yesterday so the template was warranted. 3) I have never had any prior interaction with the above user, Ceoil, and he came out of the blue to tell someone to ignore me. 4) I admit that my replies were not exactly controlled, but this guy was just there to annoy me. Plain and simple. 5) I am an admin. 6) I'm allowed to use the word "sweetheart" because I am actually a queer and am quite feminine! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sweetheart" is condescending, regardless of your sexual orientation. As is "little sugar dumpling". It's fairly obvious that this is going to be aggravating, as is mocking a user over their block log (incidentally, one that's undeserved). It's amazing to me how often ANI goes over the issue of whether or not admins should threaten to block for perceived slights against themselves. I'd prefer to see an electric fence around this. But at any rate, the consensus seems to be that admins should not issue blocking threats and ultimatums in response to what they perceive as insults. --JayHenry (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Without commenting on the matter itself: Such a reply is, indeed, generally speaking not very helpful. —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• As for Wesley, while he was edit-warring, he wasn't violating 3RR, so the template usage was iffy. But that aside, you both acted poorly. Agree to disagree and move on, please. Let's not let this spiral. Wizardman 19:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  Wizardman, I appreciate the calls for moderation, but some of us who are not admins are frustrated that admins go around bullying the hardest working encyclopedia builders on the project like this. Ceoil's not there to annoy Scarian. In fact he's there to support Wesley, and here in general to write many of the project's best articles. One way to prevent these threads on ANI would be to address the root cause which is a culture that continues to condone blocking threats from admins against regular editors for perceived slights against themselves. This caste system is deeply frustrating and demoralizing for non-admins like myself. I'm disappointed to see that you're not sympathetic. --JayHenry (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  I see what you mean, and Ceoil above as least admits that he went over the line, unlike Scarian, which should be taken into account in looking on the matter. Wizardman 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wow. I cannot believe this perosn is an admin, and that unsoliciteded comments like this and replies like this don't set off alarm bells. Why only last weekend I was told here by multiple admins that a mistake made on my block record would'nt predijuce other admins against me, and that I should just shut up. One week later its used to bait me, by an admit; and the responce is move along and shut up? Wow. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this editor is also reverting my replies on his talk,[37] [38] hence why I was a little rude. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is generally accepted that using rollback within your own userspace is a matter of convenience, rather than anything else, and shouldn't automatically be taken for anything more... _Gb^T/c 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough it allowed, But its not nice. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness Ceoil, this is far from becoming. Don't play the injured party when you yourself are making remarks unbecoming of any editor. I'm not defending Scarin as such but people in glass houses .... Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was in responce to Have we ever had any communication at all ever? Judging from your block log you're quite popular with all the admins! Little sugar dumpling! . What would you do. Not forgetting that it was followed with the treath of a block. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that. Pedro :  Chat  19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Smart. Holy you. Ok I just shut up so - Admins feel free to bait and treathen me at will; nobody gives a fuck and my integrity and openion mean nothing to nobody. Brilliant. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, Pedro. Been awhile since you didn't have the buttons yourself, isn't it? Ceoil was taunted, mocked and threatened by an admin here, for encouraging Wesley not to inflame a situation? Who wouldn't be frustrated? And then, after taunting and mocking Ceoil, and getting a rise out of him, Scarian issues a blocking threat? We don't need more apologists for pure and simple admin bullying. There's no parity in this situation. Ceoil isn't issuing blocking threats. --JayHenry (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can take that to my talk if you think I'm some big bad admin out of touch with the issues real editors have and the bullying that occurs by some administrators. I'm not stupid. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And Jay, you may wish to note the refactored comment [39] which means my response seems harsher than it was when I originally replied. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of admins and bias, there most likely is some subjectivity for admins done, likely subconsciously. However, I don't think this is an instance of an admin doing something, it's just two users at each other's throats. Who is/is not an admin shouldn't factor into this. Personally, I need to look at the diffs some more before I render a more accurate opinion. Wizardman 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, with all due respect, what you said there means nothing as far as I can see, just obtuse evasive wordsmithing and an admission that you dont have a full grasp of what happened.. Read the timeline. two users at each other's throats is a deep misunderstanding of what happened. He specifically gamed and baited me, he knew what he was doing, and it was a result of last weekend 'trouble'[40]. Note that that 'trouble' is well in the past, and has been resolved with my self and Tan, with no hard feelings. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't looked into last week's issues. if Scarian's actions are stemming from that then we do have a problem here, yes. (Sorry if I seem like I'm not really touching on anything, I just don't want any productive editors blowing up and getting fed up with Wikipedia, that's all). Wizardman 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(multi ec)Not what I said at all. Admins have zero right to bait or threaten. Admins have zero right to swear and call people witless or a troll. Editors have exactly the same absence of rights - and admins are simply editors with access to a few computer related technical bits. I'm trying to review all the issues here, that have not been presented (by either side). However I can assure you that this is not a closed shop. I can also assure you that whilst I have a great deal of respect for Scarian and only positive interaction. I have also only had positive encounters with yourself (Ceoil). I'd be happy to mediate here but a big boiling ANI thread filled with emotion helps no-one. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, let me explain a bit further. I don't think you're a big bad admin, but I think you look at this situation from a different lens than I do. If I bait you and threaten you, I cannot then turn around and block you if you respond to my baiting and my threats. That's a fundamental difference between being an editor and an admin. It's not about right, in this case, it's about ability. Ceoil does not have the ability to threaten with blocks. Scarian does have the ability, and he abused it. Both editors used some bad words and verbally abused each other, starting with the mocking, taunting and condescension from Scarian (to which Ceoil responded). Scarian, however, abused his adminship privileges by brow-beating another user with them. Fundamental difference. --JayHenry (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If having the buttons colours my view then I do not deserve the buttons. My initial reaction was straight forward. I don't like swearing and I don't want only one side represented. There are issues here, and I'd like to review them. Both these guys are quality editors and evidently a dispute has boiled over and tempers are flaring. Can't we 3O this informally? Jay, you would seem an ideal person to help mediate. Scarian, I'd urge you to accept that you have made some poor decisions and agree to discuss this - but not in an area where we will simply see bad blood. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also have the upmost respect for both Wizardman (mr DYK), and Pedro (Mr voice of reason). I'm just surprised at the reaction. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Reason! Wow! Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He; take all complements as they come Pedro, no matter in whatever shape or form. ;) Ceoil ^sláinte 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking to dismiss Scarian's conduct, not at all. His "call me a troll and i'll block you" comment was both unneccessary and unacceptable, and did seem like baiting. But he hasn't made any edits since posting here, so unless he continues the trouble all we could do is admonish the conduct, which was the first thing I did. Wizardman 20:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My fear, from experience, is that I'll be here again next week, with a similar complaint, if this is ignored. And it would seem it is being ignore, frankly. This is not the first time I've seen poor admin actions brushed under the carpet[41], and I'm fairly sure it wont be the last. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are here next week with the same complaint, he'll be blocked. Suigetsu 20:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Suigetsu, but can this thread be left open. Pat is offline, and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say when he comes back. A "sorry I fucked up", would end this. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked both editors to lay this one down as an experience. If my assessment of them as quality contributors is accurate then I'm sure they will find a middle way,or simply agree to ignore each other and get back to issues at hand with "lessons learnt". Either way, User:WifeOfPedro is glaring and I'm unable to input further tonight. Good luck guys, sort it out eh - please. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have struck my comment and apologised to Ceoil here. I do apologise to everyone involved for losing my temper, and it was a good faith 3RR warning to Wesley, he was rather close to violating the rule, for the record. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yopu forgot to mention this. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my responce to his sarcastic apology here[42]. Please dont take me for such a fool that such a guarded, insincear, bitter and self serving apology as that would be enough. I asked that he be a man and say "I fucked up", all I got were the bitter snvlings of a child. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Charmimg. I had a lot of sympathy for your position whilst reading through this thread. But you are so out of order here it's not funny. I suggest you sleep on it and reread his apology once you have calmed down. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, Theresa. I'll let it go for now and revist with a calmer head. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all rather silly. I must say I didn't realize I had reverted three times in 24 hours on the article until Scarian told me, so I did find his notice helpful. I also must say I appreciate and value any honest opinions Ceoil expresses to me on my talk page, but it's not like I'm going to act on all of them. If I did I would've traded up Wiki editing for taking Ecstacy at raves years ago (because a certain Irish editor does make them sound appealing). Everyone chill out, because it's not that big a deal. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real issue has been missed here. An admin must not call a user "little sugar dumpling". No admin. No user. Ever. Being gay does not excuse it. One offense should be grounds for serious admonition, continued offenses should be grounds for sysopping. If a male admin referred to a female editor that way, everybody would agree. Switching the genders/orientations doesn't change anything. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's disgustingly rude and condescending. Admins rightly or wrongly are seen as role models here, and that is exactly the sort of wrong behavior. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Suigetsu

WP:BEAR

• Okay, I think almost everyone so far has done nothing but sit around and poke one another. I mean really, is this thread accomplishing much of anything? Other than oodles of drama that is. Everyone go get a nice cup of tea and find some article in need of editing, please? Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Well drink tea until he does the same thing to another editor, or until another admin uses my log to jump-from nowehere-to treaten me. Grand.

He apologized to you. Drop it. Suigetsu 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

His apology was worthless and dripping in scarcasim. I dont accept it all. Read what you are commenting on. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not and you have no right to assume it is. WP:AGF, homes. If he's calling you "friend," that means he's calling you his friend. It doesn't mean that he's out to get you, it means he wants to start over. Also, don't get into incivility with me, please. I just got back from being blocked and I'm really trying to be nicer to people, and it's hard when you snap at me to "read what I'm commenting on" when I'm just telling you to take an apology (that I read) for what it is: an apology. Suigetsu

• I would like to add something this to thread, hopefully to refocus on an issue that has been missed and will continue to surface if not addressed, but I have to go read FAC now, as I'm on a "bot" schedule. I hope this thread isn't archived in the next few hours (and I hope everyone can stop poking for a bit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Sandy... my better judgement is to just wrap this whole thing up in an archive template like the little parcel of dramatic joy it is and tossing it in a corner so hopefully everyone can just move on... but for you, I shall overcome my baser instincts. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to promote/archive FAC (I have to conform to a new bot schedule); please give me another hour to finish up (and thank you East718 for shortening what I need to say, and possibly even negating the need :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re opening. This is not at all closed. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm mildly disappointed, but that's your prerogitive. HalfShadow 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As am I. Ceoil, what do you expect to be achieved by leaving this open? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor in good standing indicated that they needed a little time to formulate a reply before this discussion was closed. It wouldn't have hurt to take heed of that polite request and keep it open a little longer, no matter the relevance or usefulness of that eventual comment Steve ^{T • C} 00:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn't really matter to me at all; as I said, I was simply being bold. The topic was getting quite snippy, and I felt perhaps enough was enough. As I am not an admin, any decision I make can be freely reverted. HalfShadow 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay: I had a midnight bot deadline to meet. I just wanted to add some words that I hope will be taken into consideration. Ceoil has an unfair block log because of a series of errors and past misundertandings (hopefully East718's note in his block log will help). Even though everyone has made peace and those issues are all water under the bridge, the concern (each time) was that Ceoil would be judged in the future based on his block log. Only a week after the concern was raised, it appears that may have been a factor here. I have noticed (not only here) many insensitive statements from editors who seem to downplay what it may feel like to have contributed so much, and not have others recognize that one doesn't want to be unfairly branded because of a faulty block log. Those insensitive comments have fueled further hurt and anger, beyond the original event, each time this has happened. I do hope that admins keep in mind the power they have to affect reputations via a block log, and not to downplay what it feels like to the editor in that position when such issues arise at AN/I. Someone mentioned, well, if an admin baits you again, we'll block him, and there have been repeated "oh, just drop it" comments, but Ceoil did drop it last week, extended an olive branch to everyone involved, and only one week later, he was hit again. It's a new admin each time, who encounters that block log and doesn't know the comedy of errors that led to it ... so we replay this scenario each time, with Ceoil becoming further angered by the insensitive responses. Because I was once targeted by a "group of we admins", I know how it feels; please consider how an editor feels when their block log is unfairly stained. That's all I wanted to say; there is no recrimination or ill will towards any one who may have erred in the past, just a plea to remember how it feels to be in Ceoil's position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That was only a small part of this whole drama; Pat mentioned the block log in one of his taunts, and that was about it, as far as I can tell... it played very little in the actual events that unfolded. That said, looking over this block log thing, it's definitely a problem, and needs to be dealt with if there's any question at all that East's actions won't completely erase any chance of something similar happening again. Suigetsu

Its downplay and "That was only a small part of this whole drama" that are at the root of this. Come on. There is a real problem here. : Ceoil ^sláinte 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, East dealt with it, and it's over with, but it's no excuse for this. Suigetsu

Suigetsu, considering your role in the earlier events that contributed to this two-week drama, please don't poke at Ceoil. It would be unfortunate to lose both Yannismarou (talk · contribs) and Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, so you're allowed to berate me for previous blocks, but not ceoil? consider me taken care of. Suigetsu 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking you not to take care not to poke or escalate is not berating; also, I'm not pointing out previous blocks, I'm saying that the loss of Yanni is part of the whole picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The loss of Yanni is not part of this particular incident in any way. I stand by my point that although I sympathize with Ceoil's position, I admonish him not to be incivil as a result, but that probably doesn't matter, because per Yanni, it appears that having this position in particular is a warrant for a ban. I'm not checking back in this thread, because I don't want to hijack Ceoil's incident; that is, I want this thread to remain as on-topic as possible, but I'd like you to check out what I did, as Suigetsu, in the Yannis fiasco, which was post an encouraging, apologetic message on Yannis' talk page as atonement for the IP behavior. Suigetsu

Which was in reply to this, and followed up with a block warning. Lets not forget the facts here. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I understand Scar was a dick, and believe me, I know what it's like to be provoked into being a dick by another dick, but two wrongs don't make a right. Suigetsu

Oh, and that block warning was completely uncalled for, that fact is completely unchallenged. Suigetsu 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Yannis is central to this. Or do you have no grasp of the bigger picture. As with here there was a bullying admin, as with here there was a premature closing of the thread. Wake up, and at least admit that admin actions have consequences, and it would seam, given the hostile reaction to my straightforward complaint against a thug, many of them are designed. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And when did I say that Pat's actions should go unnoticed? My position is not that "Pat gets to do whatever he wants cause he's an admin," but that "victims of harrassment don't get to do whatever they want." In other words, civility is still a standard that both sides should abide by. I deeply sympathize with Ceoil's position, as I have tried to stress, but it seems that all you care to do is paint me as the enemy here. By the way, the whole thing that got me in trouble in the first place was stressing that there should be repercussions for Yannis' behavior in that incident. Suigetsu 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Man with one red shoe

User:Man with one red shoe seems to have a habit of wiping his talk page, which I see has contained quite a few warnings relative to the amount he has contributed. I am currently choosing not to get into an edit war with him at Bucharest even though I think he is utterly wrong on the matter at hand. Someone who has not been in conflict with him might want to look into the pattern of his edits, I've seen just enough to tell me that I'm not willing to assume his good faith, which means I should stay out of the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Without looking into the rest of it, any user has the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Oren0 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, when an editor gets reported and an admin finds they have a habit of blanking their talkpages which just happen to contain many warnings regarding the same things... Well, it usually doesn't go well for that editor. However, if an editor becomes a well regarded member of the community - who needs those reminders of a less than savoury past cluttering up the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with people looking into my history. As for blanking my page is not related to any warning, I don't let any comment on it. So, what is the complain about, my edits in Bucharest, or my blanking my talk page -- just to be sure that I understand what is this about. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rule. So, what's this about? man with one red shoe (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Everyme

I really hate to do this. I'm pretty thick skinned, and generally detest people coming here to complain of incivility or personal attacks. But completely unprovoked remarks about me by Everyme (talk · contribs) have left me speechless. I'm not going to say more, to resist poisoning the well, but I'd very much appreciate some admins to examining this comment and then this thread, and take whatever action seems good to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I tried to resolve this situation, unsuccessfully. See my comments here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful to L'Aquatique for her attempts. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to get it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that Everyme has been made aware of this discussion, can I summise the concern is that Everyme has offended Scott MacDonald's sensibilities by inferring that an good faith difference of opinion by SM has been termed "intellectual dishonesty"? If so, I agree that Everyme should apologise for the lack of good faith shown and intemperate language used - different philosophies can produce different results from the same evidence; to label a differing conclusion as "dishonest" is both arrogant and incivil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for not informing everyme, but I didn't want to be seen as baiting him, so I was staying off his userpage. If it had just been the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, I'd have let it pass. But he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade. An apology would be nice personally, but that;s not the point, it is more important from the project's point of view that we communicate that there are limits, beyond which we don't tolerate this attitude. I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Everyme been aware that use of that name (it means nothing to me) would have been particularly offensive to you, or to anyone, and is it possible that they still misunderstand that this is the case? I have to say that I missed this point when reviewing the links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Em, his post doesn't make sense without it. But read all his remarks and draw your own conclusions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Ashley Todd is the name of the hoaxer... On repeat review I don't think that Everyme meant what you have taken it to mean (IMO, regarding concerns over the BLP considerations of someone who themselves are admitted liars coupled with the "intellectual dishonesty" language), but they have not made any effort to explain themselves better and certainly not taken the route of apologising for any misunderstanding - but rather simply requested you to review the past content and draw different conclusions. I would prefer that Everyme made some comment here before seeing if any admin action is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he meant something else? Maybe when he called me dumb, and stupid or dishonest, he was actually trying to say something nice as well?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the real issue here is that this is ultimately about McCain-Obama. In a couple of weeks, Everye will lose interest in this, and probably Scott as well. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Imnotacoolguy

This user has been being constantly bitey to me about my articles. See here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Imnotacoolguy Schuym1 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I'd suggest some diffs to help but really I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs are in the link provided. Schuym1 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation

As I wrote on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation? I would like to create a Requests_for_mediation for Joe the Plumber.

Since I tried to create this, another user edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, complicating things more.

PS I know this is the wrong forum, but since wikipedians tend to gravitate towards controversy, this is one of the most frequented pages with a lot of veteran editors.

Please help? Inclusionist (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Simply really, really bad instructions. Does anyone know what template this is, I want to make a request to change it:

To file a request: Cases are created on subpages of this page. To do so, insert the name of the article (the main article, not twelve different articles or the names of the parties) in the box below (do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only) and click "File request." You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request; be careful not to change the format of the text.

Inclusionist (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no way a request for mediation will accomplish anything in the next week, and after that it won't matter. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know what the template is for the above box? Thanks. I filed the mediation and did it wrong. sigh. Inclusionist (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, found it. [43] thanks everyone. Inclusionist (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)