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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:One Night In Hackney's signature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe he's a fan of IRAs. --Mperry 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also support the 1916 sig compromise. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought IRA was an acronym of 'I Ran Away'.4kinnel 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment

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

context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive70#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block [2]. Here's an angry user feeling he was wronged. But hey, it's a 24h block from two months ago. The block was debated for longer than its duration back then, people objected it, but nobody seems to have reverted it. Have you asked Worldtraveller to stop posting to your talkpage? If you did, and if he feels he still wants to pursue the issue, you should kindly ask him to open an admin conduct RfC or look for arbitration. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't to me [3] — Moe 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yet again, InShaneee seems to be ignoring the questions about his conduct. If trying to get answers about what appears to be violations of policy is harassment, then I will keep on harassing. The only reason I have continued pursuing this "long after the fact" is that InShaneee completely refused to discuss it at all for six weeks. That's shocking for an administrator, and I am not prepared to let misuse of administrative tools be glossed over like that. InShaneee owes everyone an explanation, not just me, and his refusal to listen to criticism is evidence that he's really not a very good administrator at all. Worldtraveller 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse, you can quit with your harrassment anytime you like. — Moe 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that really supposed to be helpful input? Worldtraveller 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't get blocked and you stop persisting that InShaneee be desysopped, than I have done what the above statement was supposed to do. — Moe 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that advice is helpful. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And now CBD has blocked Worldtraveller for 24 hours for "Continued harassment of another user despite strong warnings. We have procedures for resolving disputes. Harassment and threats aren't part of them." And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block.

I see no harassment or threats. What I see is a seriously annoyed user being ignored by an admin who blocked him. The half-hearted "apology" that was offered is clearly not sufficient as an explanation - certainly not sufficient for Worldtraveller. (I was looking for his original complaint on Inshanee's talk page or its archive, and see that they were removed with the comment "rv troll" . A great example of the failure to establish the dialogue that Worldtraveller has been seeking.)

Here we have an almost perfect example of how not to behave as an admin - repeatedly revert an anon without discussing, then block the anon, then refuse to discuss. Apparently, if you refuse to discuss for long enough, you get away with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very much afraid that Worldtraveller has now gotten exactly what he was seeking. Over two months ago he stated his intent to leave Wikipedia and, like so many before him, found that he couldn't force himself to stay away. Instead, an editor who was once almost universally lauded for his civility and his ability to work on controversial articles without revert-warring seems to have decided to instigate two separate revert wars, insult multiple editors (including myself) and quite deliberately set out to harass an admin. Why did he behave in such an uncharacteristic way? Could it be that having found himself unable to jump, he sought to antagonize the community into giving him a push? Some people seem to prefer to leave Wikipedia as a martyr rather than as a quitter. — MediaMangler 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

In what sense does (this this [4] or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. Is this some kind of revenge for his (entirely constructive and accurate in my view) criticisms of Wikipedia? edward (buckner) 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the opinion that this block is outrageously unjustified. WorldTraveller should probably have dropped the issue and gone on with something else, but that's not a blockable offence; I can see no sign of the supposed harrassment and threats — could someone provide diffs? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure he should have dropped the issue and gone on with something else. You can follow the original thread on a copy I made here. The issue over the original block in January is that an administrator abused his position, contravened policy, and gave a dishonest reason for a block designed to win the upper hand in a content dispute. WT then got irritated by the fact that an admin who clearly knew his actions are being questioned refused to offer any kind of explanation, or to discuss. The second block was simply for so-called 'harrassment' (see below). edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ALoan said "And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block." Please be more accurate, it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked. He is welcome back afterwards. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Personal attack removed[5]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider that disparaging the contributions of another user, calling people fuckwits, and otherwise following Worldtraveller in ignoring Wikipedia's standards of civil behaviour only hurts your position. As it has his. --CBD 15:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The original block seemed justified to me, only 24 hours after a month of not letting it drop. I don't think it is appropriate to make demands of another editor day after day for that long, nobody owes you a response. If that block is overtured, I ask that the 24 hours extension for personal attack stays, I have personally warned him in the past about insults, and so have others. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense 'a month of not letting it drop'. Given the concern was a matter of principle and entirely justified, and given that 'Inshanee' refused to discuss the matter and was generally high-handed about it, why should he not continue. Here, for the record, are the postings that WT made to Inshane's talk page:

• 3 March 2007
• 3 March 2007
• 3 March 2007
• 28 February 2007
• 23 February 2007
• 19 February 2007
• 14 February 2007 (ignore first section – another user)
• 13 February 2007

edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

People have said that there is no evidence of threats or harassment here. I consider, "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do.", to be an incontrovertible example of both. Tell me I'm wrong. Worldtraveller has repeatedly been told to follow dispute resolution procedures. Insulting people is not part of dispute resolution. Declaring a mission to get someone de-sysoped is not part of dispute resolution. Continuing to badger someone on their talk page for a month after they have apologized and asked to be left alone is not part of dispute resolution. The relative merits of the contributions of 'user A' vs 'user B' are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. The relative merits of the initial complaint vs the apology and explanation to it are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. All that is relevant is whether Worldtraveller has continued to pursue a campaign of insulting and badgering InShaneee rather than following dispute resolution procedures. He has. He was repeatedly warned not to do so. He ignored those warnings and continued ([6] [7] [8]). Ergo, he was blocked.

I'm all for confronting mistakes and/or bad acts by admins, but we have procedures for doing so that don't include hounding them after they have apologized and expressed a desire to be left alone. If Worldtraveller can't accept the explanation he got from InShaneee his next step would be to request mediation, RFC, or RFAr... not continue to badger InShaneee indefinitely. --CBD 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The confusion seems to result from the belief the anybody deserves and answer from another, and has the right to demand it day after day even though he has been told it is disruptive. The fact is anyone has the right to ignore another user, and nobody is obligated to respond to the demands of another. In this diff[9] he declares his intent to continue harassing, I am satisfied with the preventative nature of this block. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. Given the issue, he should have got some sort of reply. Read the postings. edward (buckner) 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He was told the correct action was to file an RFC or RFAR, but he ignored that advice and continued harassing. Dbuckner please be civil. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where was he told this? edward (buckner) 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In this very thread. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

But this very thread started on 1 March, did it not? And one of the comments that supposedly constituted 'harrassment' was made by WT on this thread. And btw please don't leave v. unpleasant and harrassing message on my talk page, thank you very much. Unbelievable. edward (buckner) 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if you insult other editors I will go to your talk page and leave a no personal attack warning. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't do it. Read carefully. I said the editors in question seem to be behaving like f--wits. As indeed they do. Incredibly so. edward (buckner) 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is still a personal attack. You cannot just stick "seems to me" onto an insult and sling away, that does not justify abusive language. I would not try to dance on the line of personal attacks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Let's suppose for a moment that I was wrong. People can disagree on when something crosses the line into 'harassment'. What if repeatedly badgering someone about a past incident when they have indicated a desire to be left alone is NOT harassment? Even were that the case, I had clearly said ([10]) that I believed it was... and that if WT continued doing it rather than following WP:DR he would be blocked. And thus, when he then said that if this was harassment, "then I will keep on harassing", he knew he was going to get blocked. A reasonable response to my statement that further harassment of this sort would result in a block would be to explain why refusing to follow dispute resolution procedures and instead continue hounding the target for answers is NOT harassment. Worldtraveller didn't do that (go figure). He said he was going to continue doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment. Even assuming I'm wrong about that, Worldtraveller clearly was being deliberately disruptive and doing precisely what he knew would result in himself being blocked. The subsequent 'shock' about this is thus highly disingenuous. Worldtraveller is certainly capable of 'doing the math' on 'if you continue to harass you will be blocked' + "I will keep on harassing" = block. So even if he wasn't, by some definition, harassing InShaneee Worldtraveller's behaviour was still a very bad idea. Rather than discuss the matter reasonably he insisted on doing the thing he had to know would get him blocked. And then using that inevitably as an excuse for 'shock', 'disgust', and personal attacks. However, I don't believe I was at all wrong about this being harassment. WT's inability to explain why he won't go to DR, his declaration of a vendetta to get InShaneee de-sysoped rather than to address the problem, and his deliberately provocative actions and 'outrage' at the inevitable block seem proof enough of bad action on his part. --CBD 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the entire thread on this, including all the "harassing" posts to InShanee's talk page and it's making me feel quite ill. WT has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him about that admin's actions (that affected him). This is NOT harassment, nor disruptive, and is in fact the appropriate course of action recommended at WP:DR. IMO, CBD's warning was absurd and deserved to be ignored. CBD's analysis of this (above) that WT was effectively asking to be blocked is also ridiculous. Continuing doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment doesn't mean "please block me", but "you're wrong, this is not harassment". Rather than wheel war about this, I ask CBD to please reconsider this block. I'd tend to forgive the very heated comment resulting in the extension of the block as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that WT "has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him"... but that is all totally irrelevant, because it already happened. WT asked. InShaneee responded. Indeed, InShaneee said he was mistaken, apologized, and explained where he went wrong. I hope that everyone agrees that somewhere between asking once for an explanation and some bizarre extreme of responding to every comment the person makes with demands for a response (even after one is given), threats, insults, et cetera such communication passes from 'reasonable expectation' to 'blatant harassment'. Obviously, this situation falls somewhere between those two frames of reference. I believed that it had clearly crossed over into harassment and said so. Several other people agreed. Frankly, I find the it incomprehensible that people would claim things like, "You're clearly just a witless moron. How you became an admin I cannot begin to understand" and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do", are NOT harassment. As I've said, opinions on where the line is drawn apparently differ... but alot of reasonable people agree with my view that WT crossed it a good ways back. I warned him to stop or be blocked, he refused with a clear intent to continue escalating towards that bizarre extreme, so he is blocked. As to the question of unblocking... it has become irrelevant. WT scrambled his own password. Whether the block were removed now or extended to indefinite there would be no difference... he can't log in to that account any more. Worldtraveller made his own bed... every step of the way and very deliberately. --CBD 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And what do you think about the 24 hours I added for personal attacks[11]? Do you also think that behavior is acceptable? I would like to point of that even a reasonable request can be harassment if you make it enough times. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller has already decided to leave, even though I do hope he comes back. His essay, WP:FAIL was very thought-provoking and it's a shame that he is leaving. However, let sleeping dogs lie for the meantime. I don't see the point of this continued discussion as, after reading all this, both sides did not act especially civil so nobody should be pointing fingers. MetsFan76 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Yet another established user blocked for defiance. I have been arguing on this board for a long time for the propriety of having patience with a user under a block; putting up with what they say; turning a blind eye even to attacks from them; even from pure vandals. Everybody seems to agree when I say stuff like that; and yet nobody seems ready to unblock such an egregious block of an established user—a very good user—as Worldtraveller? In view of the comments above, showing that there is nothing approaching consensus, or approval, for any of these blocks—the original, or the extension—I'm going to unblock. I would ask ask the original blockers to do it; but I see they have already ignored such requests, so I'll just do it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

PS; Ah, I see Geogre already did. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, it's admins such as yourself that give me faith in Wikipedia. It is very encouraging to see someone stand up for what is right. CBD, you say it's irrelevant now that WT was blocked. That is unfortunate as he was an excellent editor and while he may have been somewhat uncivil, it is clear that he is not all to blame for this fiasco. MetsFan76 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You apparently missed the part about where he scrambled his password and can't log in whether blocked or not. As to my block being unjustified. No, no it wasn't. You call someone a "witless moron", threaten them, continue to harangue them after being asked to stop... normally you get blocked on the spot. Instead, I just warned him that I would block if he didn't stop and pointed him towards DR... he responded with a declaration that he would "keep on harassing", carried out that declaration, and I blocked as I had said I would. I find people excusing his egregiously bad behaviour as sickening as some have declared my block of him for it to be. If we are to allow users to openly declare and carry out campaigns of harassment against each other collaboration is dead. WT had made such declarations. He had to be told that it was not allowed and then blocked when he refused to heed that warning. --CBD 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I didn't "miss" anything. I have been following this since WT wrote WP:FAIL. He has been hounded by other editors who disagreed with him since. Enough so that he finally snapped. Also, I am not "excusing" his behavior. I found it to be in poor taste, however, I don't necessarily blame him. Furthermore, WT has left Wikipedia. He has dropped the issue. Isn't it time that you follow his example? If it is "irrelevant," then act like it is so. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. MetsFan76 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to Bishonen... his rush to unblock 'missed' the fact that doing so was irrelevant since WT can't use that account now anyway. As to the rest, if you agree that his behaviour was "in poor taste"... what's the problem? I asked him to stop behaving badly. He refused. I blocked him. Should I have allowed him to continue behaving badly? Forever? At what point DO we block for bad behaviour? I thought that "witless moron" and the rest of it was a pretty good point at which to say, 'stop or else'. Should I have waited for death threats? Finally, on 'dropping the issue'... neither WT nor various others here have 'dropped' their objection to the block. They've said various things about it which seem to me clearly false (like, WT wasn't attacking / did not make threats / et cetera)... I'm correcting those mis-statements and explaining my position. If people want to move on that's fine with me, but it certainly does not seem to be the case. Thus far, people have seemed to want to claim that WT did nothing wrong. And that just isn't true. --CBD 18:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocks

I unblocked. I did so because HighinBC was very much engaged in a polemic over the issue, and I felt that it was incorrect for him to block. Additionally, I felt that there was a preponderence of opinion here that a block, especially given the controversy, would be antagonistic. That's why I unblocked. It just seemed to be a hasty and incorrect action to perform a block. The angrier you are, the less you should reach for the button. Geogre 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly was not, what are you talking about? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I increased the block for personal attacks "fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"[12], not sure what polemics you are referring to, but that block was very justified, and I think your unblock is inappropriate. Even if you undid the first 24 hours for harassment the 24 hours I gave for personal attacks is clearly justified. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that people are acting without having all the facts. Geogre and Bishonen rushing to unblock... because they are apparently unaware of the fact that Worldtraveller scrambled his own password and can't log in whether unblocked or not. Geogre making false claims in his unblock summary about 'involved admins' not making judgments... I wasn't involved until I made my judgment. Claims that there is no cause for block here despite statements like "witless moron", "fuckwits", and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do" coming from WT. You're wrong here. He was blatantly violating civility policy and refusing to stop or pursue a less disruptive means of resolving the dispute. --CBD 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's clear to you that I offered to unblock without being aware that WT had scrambled his password, you're in a fog. Please consider what a block is, and what it does. How it affects users. It's not a mere enforced wikibreak, it's a slap in the face. It's a shock. It's extremely humiliating for established, productive users. It's permanent dirt in your log. Unblocking is a gesture worth making regardless of whether the person can log in or not. Please give your imagination a little more exercise, CBD. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

But there was the definite appearance of f---wittedness. In England, at least, that's a gentle rebuke for dim-witted behaviour or cluelessness. Look what these guys did. WT is one of the best editors in the Wiki. I think he gets in the top ten for featured articles. We should be doing everything we can to encourage editors like this to stay. By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel of this sort, and contributes nothing at all to Wikipedia. And he engages in this highly arbitrary action against a greatly respected editor, who naturally reacts rather badly. He leaves about messages over a 1 month period, generally courteous and reasonable-minded, and the one called Shane rudely refuses to reply. After leaving two more messages, he gets blocked. Now that's really, well, I won't say the word. edward (buckner) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to take a wikibreak now, I have interrupted it to deal with this accusation of sorts. I will look in on this later, but I will leave you folks with the assurances that my limited dealings with this person weeks ago have no bearing on the personal attack block I did, and I think it is a out of line to undo a block that was given for clear violation of the WP:NPA policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA has no penalties. There is no such thing as "a personal attack block". If there was, it goes without saying that it would be inappropriate to block for an attack against yourself ("fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"). This is a bad day for trigger-happy admins. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you saying that a user who has had several warnings about civility and personal attacks cannot be blocked for it? That is nonsense, this user was warned over and over to stop personal attacks, it is a blockable offense to ignore policy after several warnings. Do you really think that my name being included in the insult clouded my judgment so much that I saw an insult where there was none? That is a clear insult. The block was justified, it was not due to any sort of bias, and I resent the implication. NPA has no proscribed penalties, but it is subject to blocking. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflicts]

I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment; all that has been shown is that, having been the subject of an unfair and unjustified block, he pursued the question with the blocking admin, hoping for justice. Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation, and that certain other admins have no more notion of justice than does a pile of bricks. He lost his temper in the face of that (being human), and said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were. In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him. How very edifying. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, tell it like it is, Mel. edward (buckner) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, that's a grossly untrue representation of the situation:

1. "said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were" - So you are endorsing as true his claim that InShaneee is a "witless moron"? If so, at this time I need to warn you about our WP:NPA policy.
2. "I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment" - If you don't consider the numerous diffs supplied to be proof then we differ on the meaning of harassment... but then you apparently think the "witless moron" comment was ok.
3. "Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation" - A false accusation. InShanee DID respond.
4. "In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him." - He was blocked by me. My 'hounding' of him consisted of a single message telling him to stop harassing InShaneee and follow DR or he would be blocked. I did not hound him. Your implication that I both orchestrated (through continual hounding) and executed his block is a completely unjustified accusation.

What I'm seeing is alot of people who like Worldtraveller coming to his defense, but ignoring (or just not looking into) the fact that what he was doing WAS wrong. Unless you all really are in favor of calling people "witless moron" and publicly declaring vendettas. I mean, COME ON. He outright said that he was going to do everything in his power to get InShaneee. That's harassment. By any definition of the word. There is a point at which we have to say, "Stop". I believe he crossed it. And when I DID say "Stop", he refused. --CBD 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if I am acting like a moron, I would want someone to tell me. That's the only way I will learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor. Is calling someone a "witless moron" harsh? Sure. I would have said it differently but if WT thought InShaneee was acting poorly, he had every right to tell him so. He just chose his words wrong. MetsFan76 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your actions and calling you names are different. That is why we even have guidelines on civility and personal attacks. If I felt that you acting in a moronic fashion, the proper route is for me to tell you that I didn't agree with your course...it is not to call you a witless moron. IrishGuy ^talk 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that what I just said? MetsFan76 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you were saying, then I must have interpreted it incorrectly. My apoligies. To me, it seemed as if you were excusing his actions by saying that at most he chose his words poorly. I think it was an outright personal attack and I'm not sure why so many others are excusing it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. That's what I was saying. My only issue is that people are only looking at WT actions. Personally, the entire issue is done now as WT, unfortunately, left. The problem now is that HighinBC and CBD are continuing to debate this. If it's over, then let it go. MetsFan76 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is kicking a dead horse. IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, folks. I went to lunch. I wasn't trying to fail to respond to a question <ahem>. Ok, going through the thread above, I felt that HighinBC was getting very agitated about the issue. To me, that made him interested. I regard blocks as best done rarely and done by the disinterested. I understand how hard that can be. After all, having an opinion should be allowed. Obviously, I have my own. As for what that opinion is, it's that we simply should not block for NPA except, as the policy says, "extreme cases." Continually asking a question isn't an extreme case, and the question wasn't asked continually. Being high tempered when treated high handedly is also not an occasion for a block. I've had Ideogram, for example, pester me -- in my view -- for a long time, and I've had people come to my user talk page to tell me that they would do all they could to get me demoted. I did not block, and I am not a paragon of virtue. Rather, I combined my view with what I took as the majority view here and added those to the fact that I considered HighinBC too involved to perform the unblock. No meanness intended. Geogre 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled as to what irritation, or even involvement you are talking about. My involvement with this user is limited to simply warnings that his actions could very well lead to a block. I have no personal investment in whatever the debate about that month old block is. I don't even know what all that is about. I saw a user being warned not to be disruptive and threatening to continue, another admin blocked, I endorsed that block. To say I am to involved in a situation because I gave warnings is ridiculous. My block for personal attacks followed several warnings spanning weeks.

I don't mind being on the wrong side of consensus with an unblock review, so be it. Maybe the block for harassment was unjustified, maybe it was not. But my 24 hours block for personal attacks is an open and shut case, I ask that you return it by setting the block time to 19:35, March 4, 2007, 24 hours after the original block. I would do it myself, but that would be wheel warring. If you don't want to do this, then please be considerably more specific about my conflict of interest, or over involvement, or whatever it is that you think invalidated my block. Diffs would be nice. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

As a public service, here's a rough timeline of events. For people unfamiliar with the case to better judge the merits of the various claims of who failed to do what when. May be incomplete, I haven't followed the events too closely myself.

• 1st RfC about InShaneee filed, independent issue: 1 November
• First attempted closure of RfC: 29 December
• Contentious block of Worldtraveller by InShaneee 2 January
• First complaint by Worldtraveller on ANI: 3 January
• InShaneee's only immediate response after being criticised by several admins on the noticeboard: "governing the lesser Wikipedians"
• Second attempt at closing first RfC: 10 January [13]
• Attempt at discussion by Worldtraveller on InShaneee's talk. Meeting with silence. Repeated attempts over several weeks, with WT becoming increasingly aggressive at InShaneee's failure to respond, finally leading to downright insults. Escalating from 3 January to 12 February
• Renewed attempt at closing first RfC: 12 February
• 2nd RfC filed by Worldtraveller: 14 February
• InShaneee apologising to WT: 19 February. WT not satisfied with the apology, keeps criticising InShaneee harshly
• First complaint by InShaneee on ANI: 19 February [14]
• Second complaint by InShaneee on AN: 1 March

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary. As it happens, I saw that debate at the time but didn't pay attention to who the parties were and didn't realize it was connected. My brief synopsis would be; InShaneee was wrong two months ago, Worldtraveller is wrong now. Seriously, a two month (not one as I thought) vendetta? Not harassment? How can anyone seriously claim that continual haranguing of another user for two months is something we should encourage. We have dispute resolution procedures precisely to prevent that sort of long term inter-personal conflict. --CBD 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Time shouldn't be a factor here. What's wrong is wrong. There's no statute of limitations here. InShaneee was wrong then, WT is wrong now. Whatever the case, in the past two months, they both acted poorly. MetsFan76 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except of course that the longer harassment goes on the bigger a problem it is. You say Worldtraveller acted poorly. I said that yesterday and told him to stop. He refused so I blocked him. Unless you think I should have allowed him to continue acting poorly, at this point I'm not really sure what it is about my action that you dispute. --CBD 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your actions is that you are basically the only now making an issue about this. The horse is dead, stop kicking it. MetsFan76 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - he was originally blocked for "harassment" because he kept trying to enter into a dialogue about the InShaneee's block in January, rather than either letting it go or escalating the dispute resolution? And then his block was doubled because (a) he was called someone a "witless moron" over a month ago (and 3 weeks after he first asked for an explanation) and (b) he lashed out when smacked with the first block? I am so cross I can barely type. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitting our selves on the head with a hammer

Worldtraveller did nothing to merit a block - he was demanding accountability of an admin who blew him off for weeks. His actions are a good thing. Admins have a duty to answer for themselves when they make blocks in error. Is this is obvious to everyone, or do we need another 1000 words of official policy.

Blocking our best editors for questionable reasons is rather like hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer to cure a headache. --Duk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh... "His actions were a good thing". Of course... we should call everyone "witless moron" and "fuckwit". Because that'll be beneficial to the encyclopedia. How could I have missed it? :]

Seeking accountability is a good thing... if done through the proper dispute resolution procedures. Worldtraveller was urged to do so. He refused and insisted on attacks, threats, and harassment instead. That was not a good thing and it absolutely was deserving of a block. Yes, InShaneee's block was wrong. However, that does not give Worldtraveller license to behave as badly as he likes for as long as he likes. Wikipedia will be better off when people realize that BOTH 'executive' and 'personal' accountability are important. --CBD 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CBD, do you think you are acting civil right now? The people who this really affects (WT and InShaneee) have not said a word for quite some time (unless I missed something). Why don't you just drop it? There is no need for you to defend your actions. MetsFan76 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't? Oh, my mistake. I thought people were calling me a "fuckwit", "twit", "ignoramus", who made an "outrageously unjustified", "absurd", "ridiculous", "trigger-happy" block. Good to know that there is 'no need to defend my actions'. I'd somehow gotten a different impression. :]

Perhaps some of these other people could stop calling me names and insulting me to help show how this is a dropped matter that I don't need to clarify my position on? Because... you know if I don't respond apparently that would make me a "terrible administrator" and a "witless moron". --CBD 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sticks and stones......" MetsFan76 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And now HighInBC has blocked one of the people defending WT... This is getting sillier and sillier, more and more hysterical — and less and less pleasant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Dbuckner

I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see HighInBC has opened a separate thread at the bottom of this page. I'll copy this there so discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailing the blocking admin is the *suggested procedure*, not that it actually ever works. We should be *free* to criticize admins use of their tools without getting blocked. Wjhonson 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The point

In all this back and forth, the original question has got lost. What started all this was InShaneee, whether through stupidity or malice, ignoring policy and then refusing to be held accountable for his behaviour. I presume that CBDunkerson and HighinBC think that's fine. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense knows it's not fine. Why did he lie in his original block summary? Why did he fail to comment when his actions were criticised? Why did he fail to engage in any direct dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Why did he complain about his 'harassment' here instead of engaging in dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Is he pleased with himself about the way this has turned out? Has his behaviour met the standards expected of an administrator? 81.179.115.188 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are largely correct, 81, but, since Inshanee has said that he's going to take a break from blocking people, the hone has gone off the point somewhat. Unless there is an RFAR to follow, I'm not sure what more can be done. If an RFAR does follow, there will be time to force the matters into the light. Geogre 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend an RFAR, 81. RFC's are useless timesinks when it comes to questioning someone's use of the tools. Just my opinion. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I have been considering opening an RFAR myself over this whole sordid mess. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that InShaneee has in the past unblocked himself after having been blocked for 3RR - a huge breach of WP:VP: [15]. I think he doesn't believe that policy applies to him. RfAr seems like the way to go. WP:VP specifically notes that people have lost their adminship for unblocking themselves. 81.179.115.188 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous... you all want to bring out the pitchforks and hang someone for a single mistaken block that was, in fact, apologized for? I would dearly love to see this brought to ArbCom; I think this gang-bullying needs to be exposed. - Merzbow 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a spam ruling from an admin

Could someone make the call where links to Tiny Mix Tapes are spam? User:Mangle is adding this link to a large number of pages, but argues it's a legitimate review site. The site does contain a lot of advertising. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has no obvious authority, so why would anyone link it anyway? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure why being an admin asserts any more authority over the subject at hand than a regular editor, but I would say it's spam. It doesn't have any authority; it's just like Purevolume links: they're there to be there. Shadow1 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• You may find the relevant guideline useful. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The site does not contain a lot of advertising. It now has three banners, but, before that, the site operated for several years with absolutely no ads whatsoever. And, it should be noted, the ads in question are music related (it's a music journalism website). It should also be noted that Popmatters and Pitchfork contain far more ads than three. I only added links to tinymixtapes in the "professional reviews" catagory for albums, as the reviews on TMT are the hallmark of professional. I never just spam linked the basic site link. I only provided relevant content to specific albums. I deeply object to the association of Tiny Mix Tapes as spam. It is a professional music journalism website and should be allowed to be mentioned along side other professional reviews.--Mangle 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editor has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. IrishGuy ^talk 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor for tinymixtapes, or any publication for that matter. And I fail to see how adding professional reviews under the professional reviews catagory is spamming. IF you don't want people to post professional reviews, don't have a professional reviews catagory in albums.--Mangle 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangle, the problem I have with linking to Tiny Mix Tapes is that you haven't shown it to be a notable web site, in accordance with our policies. I looked into it a bit, and couldn't find anything to change my mind. You can read our web site notability guidelines here. While that is specifically for articles about websites, in my mind it would also apply to external links of this type. If someone wrote a review of an album on a blogspot blog and linked to it in an album's infobox here, I think we'd all agree that most editors would object to including it. In the absence of evidence that Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable or respected website providing reviews, it should be treated the same way, I'm afraid. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, he got blocked for spamming. I ended up pulling out about 120 links by Mangle dating back to December. Pretty much all his edits here have been to insert those links into articles. As far as I am concerned, that is the definition of spam even if the site had some notability to it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [16] and discussed in a scholarly journal[17]. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others. The reason none of this was spam is because I only added those link to the sections entitled "professional reviews." I strongly believe Tiny Mix Tapes to be a professional review source, and placing those reviews along side allmusic and pitchfork in the proper catagory on album pages is the very definition of what wikipedia is supposed to be about... good, comprehensive content.--Mangle 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a reason it wasn't spam. It was spam. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI again as you don't seem to understand the policies. You are associated with the site. You made widescale edits to various articles where your only addition was a link to the site you are affiliated with. That is spam. IrishGuy ^talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, I created album pages that otherwise would not exist, complete with tracklisting, then added a link to a tinymixtapes review under the prefabricated "professional reviews" heading. That's called content, not spam. Good call. By the way, I wouldn't call adding one link a "widescale edit." You are exaggerating.--Mangle 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you created exactly two articles...and, of course, made sure that tinymixtapes.com was the only review linked. Other than that, you placed links to tinymixtapes.com in at least 120 other articles. Yes, that is widescale spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In 120 other articles under the "professional reviews" catagory, linking to professional articles relevant to the artist = content. And I didn't "make sure" TMT was the only review linked. I just didn't put any others down. The other million Wiki editors are free to add Pitchfork or whatever they want to the pages I created. Quite frankly, I don't know how to "make sure" TMT is the only review linked.--Mangle 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained WP:COI and WP:SPAM to you countless times. You cannot link to a site you are associated with and claim it isn't spamming. It is. It isn't adding content, it is advertising reviews you wrote. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So then what is the professional reviews catagory for? For not having content?--Mangle 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly what parts of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you are having trouble understanding. IrishGuy ^talk 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what the professional reviews catagory in album articles is for.--Mangle 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So once again, you attempt to deflect the fact that you have willfully violated WP:COI and WP:SPAM by adding 120+ links to a website that you are affiliated with. IrishGuy ^talk 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Falsifying copyright info, OTRS info

Resolved

In this section, I am not using the term, "fraudulent", in any legal sense. I believe it is the best description of the actions described. Prince Godfather (talk · contribs), after being blocked several times before for copyright violations, was caught placing false OTRS permission information on the following images:

• Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
• Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
• Image:Vijaytamil.jpg

Given this user's history and given that there are numerous other images with either dubious or obviously deliberately fraudulent information (for example, Image:Shriyanew.JPG has a fraudulent email exchange copy-and-pasted and slightly edited from Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG), I have blocked this user indefinitely and plan on deleting all image uploads from this user. Given that we know we cannot trust the information this user provides, I believe it is safest for Wikipedia simply to ditch all the images.

I am sorry to have to have taken these steps but in my opinion, the actions of this user have placed the Wikipedia in danger. I welcome any constructive comments about this situation. --Yamla 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support this move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's the second time I've seen this. Please block aggressively for this sort of activity; it's wilfully and deliberately malicious. Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Total support. -- Nick ^t 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a photographer myself I appreciate your aggressive pursuit of copyright issues. Just a comment here, when I give permission to use my artwork, I send one of half-a-dozen form responses, and I send them from various names/websites, depending upon where the request originated. However, it appears you have handled this correctly by contacting the sites, rather than making an assumption, and erring towards deletion (they can be uploaded again if necessary). In the end, though, it doesn't matter, the user had already been banned from editing Wikipedia under another name. Again, I do appreciate your working to honor others' copyright by deleting all of the images uploaded by this user. People think a camera makes everyone a photographer, so pictures on the Internet are up for grabs--neither assumption should be part of Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Prince Godfather's talk page for abusing of the unblock template and also for making legal threats on his talk page while blocked. [18]. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved that there has been no violation of WP:COI -- Avi 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and claims of COI

A small set of editors have been making an increasing number of personal attacks on me, claiming that I have some sort of unspecific conflict of interest, and that they therefore can revert my edits. Most recently I have even been called a "POV pusher" (with a conflict of interest) in an edit summary. [19] This follows on the heels of similar accusations from a small number of editors. [20] [21] I'm a fairly patient editor, but this constant abuse of the WP:COI guidelines as a way of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF really needs to stop. If you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks, so I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future. Just letting everyone know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what they think the "conflict of interest" is based on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea, but COI has been the "new sexy policy" editors have been trying to enforce. I have no idea when it first started, but I did see some applications of it around December of last year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Jayjg is passionate about improving Wikipedia , yet he none the less edits it in a direct conflict of interest. You can't edit what you deeply care about and for him this includes all of Wikipedia. For shame Jayjg. WAS 4.250 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and yet I am unrepentant. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Anyone can have an area of expertise and should certainly edit in those areas as long as they follow Wikipedia policy. Should Colonel Saunders be editing the Kentucky Fried Chicken page? No. Is this the same thing? No. Elizmr 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Colonel Sanders turns up to edit from the grave, we should consider letting him since I'm not sure he'd be violating COI either being that he is no longer in a position to benefit financially or otherwise. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course he faked his own death, moved to Belize, and has taken a discrete but significant cut of KFC's profit every year since. In that case he should be blocked on sight.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're going to block people who you are in a conflict with? Isn't that, you know, a conflict of interest? Hbdragon88 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COI occurs when making an article biased would lead to personal gain (e.g. money for some quackery treatment, votes for politicians). I cannot see how Jayjg editing the Ahmedinejad article would achieve that. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hbdragon was using "conflict of interest" in a manner different from WP:COI; he was using it as a way of pointing out Wikipedia's policy that you do not use administrative functions on editors with whom you are in conflict. You ask others to investigate and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it's obvious that Jay's supposed "conflict of interest" is that he is Jewish. Jay is an editor, not an ethnicity, and trolls other editors who can't or won't make that distinction need such "educational blocks" in order to make that perfectly clear. <<-armon->> 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense from Gerash. Not surprising seeing as he called me a racist on this very noticeboard for noting that Iran does not play cricket, as well as accusing me of perpetrating "Zioattacks". In any case, by Gerash's reasoning, he may be in CoI himself on the MA article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this attacking of good editors making good edits under the guise of WP:COI seems to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and [[WP:AGF]. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see how you establish Jayjg as a Jew. His user page does not say that he is, so unless he stated it elsewhere, I do not know how you reach this conclusion.

What I do know from my experiences with Jayjg is that he doesn't usually AGF and can be somewhat uncivil ('snappy'). I can provide diffs for these problems if you need them, but looking at the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be easier & more informative, since they are rather lengthy conversations. I'm no expert, but I think this won't happen if he becomes more respectful towards other users. He assumed bad faith by writing off other users as "apologists," and often justified his editing as counteracting these supposed apologists. While it is possible that some users may be apologists, to assume that that they are is not AGF, and acting based upon this assumption yield edits that are controversial to editors who do not agree with this assumption. I did ask him once to back up his "apologist" assertion. He provided some diffs, but the only example that made sense was for User:Sarastro777, who barely edits there anyway. Even if some editors are apologists, that should not justify edits; as Jossi quoted, and I now paraphrase, 'address the edit not the editor'. Jayjg would also make insinuative comments (insinuative towards me as an editor), but when I tried to address this incivility, he would hide behind the "talk about the article content" line. It makes no sense that I should be attacked, but not allowed to defend myself, and that he gave me the whole "talk about the article content" thing is just hypocritical since I was simply responding to his not-content insinuations. So, in sum, he should simply drop this practice of making edits in response to perceived "apologists."

Also, Jayjg should try to reach consensus with those who he is in disagreement with rather than simply insisting that he is right for his own reasons, and then enforcing his own opinion on how the article should be. In other words, he should be more compromising when discussing with other editors.

Another point, that is minor but I found amusing, is citing "per talk" when there is no consensus on the talk page for the action [22]. The problem, of course, being that the consensus simply wasn't there. He had been against the 'Easter Egg', but should not remove it simply because he didn't like it, and he definitely should not edit per a talk page not authorizing consensus on the matter. It became clear that he did not like it, not for being an 'Easter Egg', but because it linked to the section that explained the translation issue. This is clear because he was willing to keep the link only if it pointed to a different spot.

While I am sure Jayjg is probably a great editor in general, he has had issues on at least the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. I urge you other administrators not to let him give "educational" bans to the various editors who he has had conflicts. Obviously, they reached some conclusions & expressed them inappropriately (as far as COI goes), but it would be unfair to punish them for their statements while leaving Jayjg 'uneducated'.

Calling other editors "apologists" is itself an accusation of COI, akin to those accusations against Jayjg that led to this ANI. For one, Jayjg should not give any of the these proposed bans himself. More importantly, if the editors who have unfairly accused Jayjg of COI are given "educational" bans, Jayjg should also be given an "educational" ban of length greater than or equal to theirs for his "apologist" accusations (and other AGF violations) because they too were unfair accusations of COI & bad faith.

I hope Jayjg reads this & considers improving his behavior in the ways I have touched upon here. Thanks. The Behnam 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope he ignores all of it; it's a very out-of-place diversion from the original point, which is that of improper allegations of conflict of interest. Regarding the "educational blocks", handle it like I've handled other editor's allegations of vandalism: I first made it clear to him that unjustified accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks; after a bit more of it, I said explicitly that the next time he called someone a vandal and I disagreed, I'd block him for 30 days (he'd already been blocked more than once for incivility and personal attacks, so the long period was justified.) The next time I saw him referring to other editors (in this case, Blnguyen was one, as it turned out), I invoked the block I'd warned him about. He's whining and claiming abuse, but that's hardly surprising. Unjustified accusations of COI are not as extreme as unjustified accusations of vandalism, but they are still tantamount to personal attacks if not backed up with copious proof. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is plenty relevant. Jayjg falls into the same group of 'improper COI allegers' and therefore should be 'educated' along with them. The Behnam 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Jay is or isn't Jewish, it's that the editors harassing him think so. That is, unless you're suggesting that maybe they think he's a Christian Zionist. This seems unlikely to me. Being an "apologist" usually entails making excuses, and is not the same as a COI. <<-armon->> 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the Jew versus Christian Zionist dichotomy comes from. I have seen a dichotomy on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page form that is basically "ZioAttackers" versus "Ahmadinejad Apologists" (to use each sides' disparaging description of the other). Anyway, "Apologist" is how he described us, and it is much more than simply making excuses. If we are "apologists" for Ahmadinejad, we have an obvious conflict of interest with the neutral editing policy, because as apologists we want to make Ahmadinejad look good & refute/downplay criticism of him, which aren't neutral goals. This is the basic reason behind considering the accusation of "apologist" akin to the accusation of COI. And from there, it only is right that Jayjg be 'educated' for the same wrongdoing. The Behnam 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are describing are relevant to POV rather than COI. I've seen these COI accusations thrown around and completely agree that they contradict WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg and I have often disagreed about an edit, but in my experience he has always based his position on Wikipedia policy or good style. As with all Wikipedians there are some areas in which he has greater expertise than others. But I have never seen a conflict of interest and I have never seen him push a particular POV - at most I have seen valid disagreements over what may constitute NPOV, a reliable source, or relevance to an article that can easily be resolved through discussion ... this is thus most mundane fodder of editing ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is rather transparent that a group of editors (none of whom have any kind of importance in the eyes of the community) are attempting to engage in a character assassination of another wikipedian solely on the back of a baseless charge that they are trying to proof by assertion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this kind of disparaging comment about the other users really necessary? Of course there are a lot of people who like Jayjg. But it seems there are also users who do not like him. What you just wrote seems kind of no-value-added. What does "trying to proof by assertion" mean anyway? What are you referring to? The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that your only "proof" is the fact that you keep saying it and hope people will eventually listen.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, seems that you are accusing me of trying to 'assassinate his character'. That is a very rude accusation, and of course that is not my aim. I haven't provided diffs or pointers to specific conversations because I felt that most of the editors who have been involved at this ANI post are well capable of going to the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. My details are in those conversations with Jayjg, but he mostly ignored or avoided responding to the feedback. Am I mistaken? Would you like me to point you in the right direction? Was your rude & accusing statement here an indirect way of asking me for specific links? Or would you rather I not? The Behnam 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see that WP:COI is much more specific in its scope than 'conflict of interest' is in general usage. I think that these people are improperly alleging COI because they don't realize that COI applies pretty much just to company & autobiographical situations. In that case I definitely take back my conclusion that Jayjg is an 'improper COI alleger', though the situations I brought up still constitute at least a consistent violation of AGF without any regard to repeated requests to AGF & be civil (on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Perhaps this is a common mistake? I believe I have seen other people refer to the policy when describing 'general' usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Anyway, knowing this, I think that the people should receive good explanations as to why they are wrong in their COI claims before something severe like 'educational' blocks are applied. Their problems with with Jayjg seem to be, in reality, about perceived POV/bias matters, so they should simply receive an explanation as to why they are improperly classifying their issue. Unless they actually think that Jayjg has some sort of autobiographical, corporate, government, etc affiliation. Then they should bring real proof or completely drop the charges. In sum, the COI allegations could easily be mistakes over the scope of COI, so the 'educational' block seems unnecessary, harsh, and will not actually fix the problem. And, if it is done by Jayjg, will be a blatant abuse of power. The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have actually read WP:COI before commenting on it; what do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what you just wrote is another example of you being disrespectful. I already realized I was mistaken and corrected myself; your 'suggestion' is not appreciated. What is the deal; are you trying to be rude or something? The Behnam 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that "conflict of interest" must mean more than "has an opinion about something". Else we are all barred from editing everything. If Jay's "conflict of interest" is that he generally supports Israel and dislikes Ahmadinejad, then the accusations are meaningless. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be mistaken in confusing a bias claim with conflict of interest. How does this warrant 'educational' blocks? How do those blocks educate them? A good explanation is much better. Perhaps Jayjg is frustrated with their improper claims, but I simply do not see what a block will do other than provoke them & cause more conflict. Of course, he'd win out in any such conflict (since he is 'important in the eyes of the community'), but the aim should be to encourage other editors to mend their ways rather than provoke them into a graver violation. Doesn't always work (User:Kiumars), but a better start than this apparently useless 'education'. The Behnam 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These editors are long-term violators who are unrepentant in their attacks. Education, entreaties and admonitions have already failed. Escalating the consequence is the next logical step. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, this seems like another example of when people cannot get their POV pushed across wikipedia (and rightfully so), they engage in trying to destroy the credibility of the wiki guardian in order to eliminate the obstacle to their attempted violations. I will agree that Jay, at times, has ben curt. But who wouldn't be if they were the target of as much improper accusations, allegations, argumentum ad hominem, name-calling, and other nonsense. I think we can all agree Jay is human, and has bad days as well as good ones. But looking at his overall prodigious wiki history (including ArbCom) there are FEW editors in wikipedia who have done more to KEEP the balance, the peace, and uphold the guidelines and policies of wiki than Jayjg. Unfortunately, the bigger the target, the easier it is to fling garbage at it :( -- Avi 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not expecting you, Humus and others, not to defend Jayig, however, editors have noted that Jayig routinely ignores the talk page, and edits the article as he wishes, leaving "per talk" in the edit summary. As an example despite most of the editors agreed that dispute on translation should be included, he removed it, citing "per talk". Although Avi and all others users and admins have a POV, but they never tried to use their admin status to intimidate editors of Ahmadinejad article, which is why no one seem to get in conflict with them. Also, while a POV and hence "conflict of interest" (general term, not WP:COI) is OK, one should ask why is it that only Jayig is always being accused of. Obviously its not his religion and ethnicity, as he might share that with Avi and others, but his constant defamation of Ahmadinejad, whom he sees as an obvious monster, not worthy of any "apologist".--Gerash77 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree that this assertion of COI is invalid. -Will Beback · † · 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards

Thread retitled from "Running combat".

Last one for the night (going to bed) - but take a look at contributions for these two editors:
Mjrmtg (talk · contribs)
A Man In Black (talk · contribs)
Some kind of war going on over gaming card articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the (dozens of) articles for the various expansions of Magic: the Gathering have lists of "notable cards", linking heavily to the offsite database of cards, but lacking entirely in attribution. They're just someone's idea of which cards in a set are notable, with no real definition of "notable." This kind of thing tends to be a POV and OR magnet, so I went through and started cleaning them up.

Mjrmtg commented on my talk page, rather brusquely, and I explained what I was doing and why, as well as the fact that I wouldn't really mind seeing the lists replaced in part or in whole, if they could be attributed. (I'd really rather see them converted to prose, but sources would be a start in doing that.) Further discussion has seen him accuse me of removing referenced material, with no examples, while he reverts my edits wholesale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain this one, in case anyone is curious. AMiB removed a whole bunch (read: 90% of the article) from the article of Tiberium. I asked him a bit about it, and it got heated. I explained my personal policy on how I edit articles. There was a fairly-large edit war on the article while he deleted and I restored and tried to add some ad-hoc sources before he'd delete it all again. Once I did that, AMiB checked my user history and removed or moved long-lasting articles I've had a part of. Check the histories on the following articles if you're curious. Ravnica, Concerned, All the articles in Magic: The Gathering sets, Cybran Nation, Aeon Illuminate... Bottom line: AMiB's edits aren't really about any violation. They are about removing almost everything I've done on Wikipedia, because I'm more concerned with good articles than making sure I follow WP:WAF. Scumbag 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not following WP:WAF makes the articles worse. They aren't better if you add in-universe info that leaves casual readers scratching their heads on what they were reading. The only group that likes in-universe is the fans, those who have played the game, but teeters on making it inaccessible for everybody else. Hbdragon88 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. If you'll look at the history of Tiberium, the bulk of what I've been doing with it (before the edit war, of course), I was removing stuff to make it more understandable to the kind of person that'll view it. With C&C3 coming out soon, it needed to be culled a bit. Not as much as AMiB wanted to do, however. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, FYI, have been reported to 3RR for numerous violations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As lame as this sounds, I think I need to be reported as well, since I did an edit war on Ravnica and Tiberium. Tiberium seems to have stopped though. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic blocked Mjrmtg for 24h and A Man in Black seems to have blocked himself for 31 hrs (that's taking responsibility for your own actions!) Crisis appears averted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for an article RfC to gauge the best way forward. Everybody seems to be acting in good faith, but with widely differing views of what's needed. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy, but I should point out that it's actually a violation of one of those rules to block yourself. <shrug> It's not a big deal, but one is not supposed to block oneself. Geogre 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • To unblock yourself sure, but to block yourself? What's that violating? Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor question - would it be okay to revert the edits made by AMiB? He did a lot of damage to a lot of articles that didn't deserve it, and I think it's best if the articles he purged be restored to their original state. Scumbag 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't just blindly revert; it won't hurt to let it settle out, but if you want to start working on cleanup of deletions that worry you, go for it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AMiB violated 3RR several other times during the past week, claiming that it's because of a guideline that I believed to have proven to not have consensus. And for those articles, on the one that caught my attention, was 8 against him, and he still kept reverting. I would like to see some sort of RfC on AMiB. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For those curious, I set up a thread over at the MTG wikiproject for discussing this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering#Notable cards.2C and set merges.. Seems a better spot than AMiB's talk page. I think that we can all agree that the ideal best outcome would be to have sourced versions of these lists, regardless of whether or not unsourced entries should be removed now or later. SnowFire 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back, and already reverting things I've fixed while he blocked himself. Cybran Nation was the first, but I have no doubt he's doing it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scumbag (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Huge number of redirects

Redirects are cheap but do we need so many of them as in : [23]? Alex Bakharev 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:05Z

Ha ha ha ha Merbabu 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwern (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (User:Gwern/Bot) that's creating redirects with all permutations of case variations with edit summaries saying articles are linking to them, but I don't see those articles. Also it seems to be buggy, creating loops or indirect redirects and creating redirects starting with "!" (was that supposed to be a blacklist thing?). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:10Z

And many of the redirects are doubles and/or malformatted (so that they aren't detected as redirects). --ais523 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I rouged them up a little. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be happening again... --Delirium 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One title has more than 500 different spellings. ww2censor 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From February's dump, Wikipedia has as many articles as redirects. I always wondered how that was possible. Now I know :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism threat

At this AFD, User:512theking says if we delete his brother's page he'll go back to vandalizing just like I did in the good old days. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was said months ago and was indef blocked. What's new about that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit was made days ago...not months ago. --Onorem 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem. I see. Well, i've just blocked the IP for a week as a sock of banned user 512theking. There's nothing more we can do at this stage i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again... These socks are a pain-in-the-rear because the user uploads copyrighted images from various accounts. I guess I'll make my rounds on numerous Pennsylvania-highway-related pages to check for copyvios soon.... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone finds suspicious images uploaded on any Pennsylvania (or New Jersey) routes that are from newer users, please let me know on my talk page. I can run these by several people (respective owners of the copyrights) who can determine if they are copyright vios or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards

Reposted because southphilly moved it up. I assume to escape administrator attention.

Thread retitled from "WP:OWN and a wikiproject about to get nasty".

I've been watching the debate here to see if it is suitable for the project to have a co-ordinator (who if you look at the history seems to be have just appointed himself after minimum consultancy and many people saying the post was unrequired). As a wikipedian of good standing, I wished to comment about the matter. However it seems that I don't have the right to do so according to a sole editor (not the same person as the co-ordinator). My position on this is very clear, all wikiprojects by their very nature should be inclusive - any attempt to say that wikipedians of good standing cannot imput into their development of a project that affects the community should be stamped on and stamped on hard. Projects do not exist outside of the regular norms of the community and should not be allowed to try and enforce guidelines that are not in line with the rest of the community.

I can see that this is about to get nasty and see the good ship HMS revertwar appearing on the horizon, can an admin pop across and have a look. --Fredrick day 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen more and more cases of Wikprojects trying to OWN articles. This needs to be addressed and stopped. Corvus cornix 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't about a WP trying to own an article, it's about a user (allegedly) trying to own a WP. I do agree with your point, but it's not entirely relevant here :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This has moved on - the WP:OWN issues are still there and the same editor has now decided that only certain wikipedians areenfranchised. This is complete bollocks, wikiprojects do not get to opt out of community input. --Fredrick day 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. Southphilly, realising that everyone else is in favour of scrapping a coordinator and my cleanup edits to the page, has taken to simply reverting the page without edit summaries (previously he kept insisting I needed to hold a vote on every change I wanted to make). I encourage anyone reading this to read the talkpage and notice my reaching of consensus of both issues with a variety of editors to that page: Southphilly instead accused me of vandalism, and has repeatedly reverted me, even as everyone else was expressing support for what I had done. Until Evrik took his wikibreak, he was also doing the same thing, and has also blatently canvassed people against me and other editors. I am finding this very wearing, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator could please take a good look at this, as not only I, but three other editors have expressed their concerns that evrik and Southphilly are trying to own the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards

Action needs to be taken on this. See here for background. Evrik has now returned and he and southphilly are tagteaming each other in reverting against consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has tried to hijack the WikiProject and is trying to force through the outcome she wants. She is being disruptive and is LYING. She is the one who is being harmful. --South Philly 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs to be protected. --South Philly 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm lying? Who is accusing editors of vandalism for reverting the page to the version agreed by all editors except you? Really, if anyone thinks I'm lying, go read the talkpage, see all the editors lining up to disprove Southphilly's assertion. Look through the history, note the point at which southphilly realised that if he called for a vote he would lose it and took to reverting without explanation, or accusing editors of vandalism. Who's lying? It sure ain't me, it ain't Fredrick, it isn't Kathryn, or thuglas, or Michael, or WJBscribe, or any other editor who has supported my edits. Note that editing the page at any way Southphilly doesn't like is "hijacking", even though everyone else supports - WP:OWN anyone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What you mean at the right version? the one where you try and exclude most wikipedians from having a say? --Fredrick day 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• People are welcome to comment, but otherwise its open to vote stacking. --South Philly 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

why? it's a straight forward WP:OWN - the actual co-ordinator bit is just the backdrop - the fundemental issue is an editor trying to remove/degrade the comments of others. --Fredrick day 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It's a project for putting little decorations on other people's userpages -- I can only assume the purpose of this is to increase general morale and 'wikilove' -- and you're quibbling about who will be in charge? Give each other some awards, forget your concern for your own titles, eliminate the various levels of membership, and then get to the business of increasing wikilove. If you find this an important goal, pursue it; it certainly does not require a coordinator. Internal bickering wastes the community's time and distracts from your project's purpose. — Dan | talk 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Go tell that to southphilly and evrik. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I would remove the levels of membership, as everyone agrees with you - except southphilly and evrik, who keep putting it back against consensus, along with teh coordinator stuff and attenpts to restrict voting to members. Really, I think it's stupid too, but that isn't stopping them crying vandal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in who is in charge or the project - I only became involved because I queried the WP:OWN practices on the page. --Fredrick day 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kirill below)Can I please ask an administrator to actually review the talkpage in question. Saying " This is stupid, just remove the membership" is all very well, but one may notice that there is a bloody-minded determination on the part of southphilly and evrik to prevent me from doing just that. If I revert one more time to the consensus version (read the page and one will find I am right) I will be breaking 3RR, and I'm fed up with southphilly just going "no, it's vandalism", even when I point out that three other people at least agree with me against southphilly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Far be it from me to criticize the idea of coordinators in general (although, honestly, why a twenty-member project that doesn't appear to actually do anything needs one, I don't know), but the behavior here is quite unseemly. WikiProjects should not try to fight the community at large; if people are concerned enough about your behavior to actively complain, it's a pretty good sign that you're doing something wrong. Trying to silence such criticism, or to insist that non-members (a silly distinction, in any case) have no voice, is utterly inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a note requesting a mediation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 objected to my role with the Barnstars. She acted boldly and removed me. A poll was put up by South Philly, Dev920 modified the poll. The whole things has gone back and forth. I want to participate, but I'm not sure what my role here is. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to do about this edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The original discussion, in which I had no part, made it utterly clear that the role of a coordinator was a opposed, and furthermore, when southphilly put evrik forward as a candidate, every subsequent editor opposed. Evrik appointed himself coordinator anyway. That wasn't being bold, that was upholding consensus. However, after an edit war, southphilly tried to get around my quite reasonable assertion that the coordinator section main page beared absolutely no relation to the discussion it was based on by holding yet another poll. My change of the poll was also to reflect objections that the poll was closed to non-members, even though it affects everyone who ever receives an award. If Evrik wants to participate, he can contribute to discussions like every other normal member instead of reverting everything he doesn't like. I, and everyone else, have no objection to that, what we object to are his attempts to rule the project. (accusing me of "hijacking" for the crime of actually editing? Please.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not exactly true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument. --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm certainly not seeing any facts from you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Evrik was nominated, and he accepted. He was doing the job anyway and everyone on the wikiproject was fine with it. Dev920 didnt like the way he was running things so she joined the wikiproject and removed him as coordinator without asking anyone. I can site the relevant links if you want me to ... is that proof enough? --South Philly 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links, relevant links, now, where is that most relevant link? Oh yeah, the original discussion about having a coordinator. Now, who was it who nominated evrik? Oh yeah, you. And who didn't want him? Oh yeah, everyone else. Now, unless you want to cite some magical link where some secret poll was held that confirmed that yes, we needed a coordinator, and yes, thet coordinator should be evrik, there's nothing much more to cite than that. The current poll is currently 8-1(you) against evrik remaining coordinator. But if you have other "proof", please, post it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly has reverted here and here against consensus, now not only that of the project, but also of the consensus here. Has he broken 3RR?

Looking back over this discussion, I'm seeing me posting links of all over the place and encouraging everyone to read the page. Evrik and southphilly, however, keep accusing me of lying, of telling half-truths, and saying that they have proof of this. Yet it never seems to show up. I wonder why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

South Philly has taken it upon himself to repeatedly remove votes from the open poll to the "comments" section.[24],[25],[26]. I find this behavior most unacceptable, and disruptive.Proabivouac 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is... odd. I respectfully suggest to all parties involved that perspective has been lost, and that they should pause to reflect upon 1) what the purpose of this WikiProject is, and 2) how it benefits the encyclopedia. Personally, I see no need for any sort of bureaucracy here, with so few participants, and it seems to me that rules and procedures are being developed for, essentially, their own sake, which is not a good thing. The amount of discussion about who is a member of which category of members, and what that category means, is puzzling, at best. I would even say it's against the wiki philosophy, and suggest a straightforward list of participants until and unless some need for a bureaucracy is clearly shown -- but again, personal opinion. However... attempting to exclude participation by non-members is a serious problem, and perhaps an indication that the project's lost its way. All good-faith editors' contributions are of equal merit, in theory -- any structure that discounts opinions presented in good faith because those editors are "outsiders" is cliquish and reprehensible. I also agree with Proabivouac that removing others' comments is not acceptable behavior. Shimeru 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to address the comments about the size of the WP and the need for an admin. It's the the project size, but the scope of the work. The pages were created to try and make some order of the WP:BS anarchy, and the WikiProject was created to try and help build consensus and mediate disputes. I think that without some order, those pages will become anarchic and their utility to the community will be lessened. --evrik ^(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Okay. But... honestly, how do you think appointing yourself coordinator has helped to build consensus or mediate disputes? It seems rather to have caused disputes. I know these questions may sound arch, but they're meant as real questions: Exactly how have you been able to advance the project or the encyclopedia by acting as "coordinator"? And what tradeoff setbacks, if any, do you see have been made? Shimeru 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?

The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.

A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.

There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.

1. Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
2. Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
3. Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
4. Is there a policy about polling people?
5. Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?

I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a clear example of WP:CREEP, with some incivility and bad assumption? DanBeale 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project?

You ask one really one relevent question:

Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted - the concept that only special people get to vote seems to me to against the spirit of the community (ARBCOM occupies a different space and purpose so the same does not apply there), As for removing the post - well the community is quite clearly saying "no it's unrequired" - that's all the policy that is needed. --Fredrick day 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. This project should either shape up or be deleted. Just my opinion, I just joined because I like the barnstars but was wary due to the nonsense above. You would think that WikiProject Coordinator was something to be bestowed a place of honor on one's resume. Heh.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki. We don't have coordinators. If someone takes a key role in something it is usually because they have unceremoniously taken on a huge responsibility, and continue in the role because they have the trust of the community. They often ask similarly trusted people to help them in their efforts. These people rarely throw their weight around (and if so, usually for a very good reason) and don't claim any special rights or powers. They operate under the consensus guidelines. They are basically grunts with respect. I distrust anyone who claims to coordinate anything. I admire people who quietly get work done and don't claim any special role. So I'd suggest that this coordinator battle be solved by abandoning the entire idea of a coordinator. -- Samuel Wantman 08:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Samuel. Kirill is coordinator for WikiProject Military history because he puts in a lot of work; acknowledging his contributions with a title is the least we can do. From reading this thread, I'm not clear about what they've done to make this WikiProject a success. How about they simply stop this fighting & just make some contributions? -- llywrch 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST is huge. They essentially want someone to... um, blame if something goes wrong. But the best coordinator (or administrator, or bureaucrat, or anything) is the one that rarely, if ever, pulls rank, as Samuel indicates above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case

Hi. Could someone please talk to Smee and ask him to stop archiving out two-day-old talk page material that may have some bearing on BabyDweezil's case for community ban. He is edit warring over it with me and I would imagine that, if nothing else, you would not archive out material that another editor wants to reamin. That seems like basic good manners irrespective of the BabyDweezil issue which makes the warring even odder appearing still. See [27]. Thanks --Justanother 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• This particular user has a history of violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and has been warned about it by myself and other third-party editors. As to archiving the talk page, it was an old thread, and there is now an archive for old material. If User:Justanother or any other user wishes to begin a new discussion, they can do so by starting a new subject heading on the talk page. Smee 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, you are the only one posting phony PA warnings on my page and this is not about me, this is about archiving a talk page prematurely and against the wishes of another editor during discussion of sanctioning an 3rd editor for actions associated with that article. What is the world are you thinking? --Justanother 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Smeelgova is hardly the only one who's concerned about Justanother's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and persistent disruption. On the contrary, he may be the only person left who thinks that asking you to follow the rules here has any chance of success. Are you trying to prove him wrong? --FOo 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Justanother has also been warned previously for disrupting the ANI process. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Smee 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's just common sense that editors are free to unarchive archived talkpage material if they have reasonable cause to want it kept on the live page. It's not an action to revert, let alone edit war over. Please don't revert JA's unarchiving, Smeelgova. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

• Sigh, alright. I will revert it. Smee 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Sigh, indeed! Thanks Bishonen. --Justanother 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton's childish behavior

Calton (talk · contribs) is behaving in a manner that makes User:EssJay look good by comparison. Every time I make an edit to the Net Neutrality article, Calton reverts it for no good reason. Generally he uses a pop-up revert, and at other times he does it manually with a misleading comment as to what he did. See any of his edits to this page over the lat two months and you will see one and only one pattern: he reverts all my edits. This person should be banned from Wikipedia. RichardBennett (talk • contribs)

Content dispute - User_talk:RichardBennett#Network_neutrality. Corvus cornix 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more than a content dispute, actually. Bad behavior is evident -- but not in the way RichardBennett claims. Here's RichardBennett's entire article edit history for March. Note the single subject and note especially the language in the edit summaries:

• 21:20, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Definitions of Network Neutrality - Restore Bob Kahn definition removed by Google's minion. restore date order)
• 21:17, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Sir Tim Berners-Lee - correct deceptive reference to only one side of Berners-Lee's testimony)
• 11:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (revert first sentence)
• 11:13, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Don't delete Kahn again. The Internet is not a network and that's what Kahn said.)
• 11:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (resolve edit confict)
• 11:04, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Removed scurrilous fact that as a citation was already provided.)
• 10:52, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Some vandal tried to make the third paragraph misleading and incoherent.)
• 10:46, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of service versus Network Neutrality - clean up the language and purge some of the blatant falsehoods)
• 10:42, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Try to make sense out of this turgid spin. There is no "public Internet", there are only transport contracts between networks. The publc Internet was shut down in 1991.)
• 10:31, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - re-word phony subjunctive constructions, remove Google-spin)
• 10:27, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - Remove optional double-talk and tell the truth)
• 10:25, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - explain distinction between public and private networks, and re-write deceptive statements on IP precedence)
• 10:06, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Benefits of non-neutral networks - rv deceptive edit)
• 10:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Clarify deceptive and misleading statement of Kahn's views on fragmentation.)
• 03:00, March 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - add citation for obvious fact that the Internet is an internet)

The contribution history is full of language like "flagrant lie", "Meatpuppet Calton is doing mischief again", and "Correct some of the gross errors if syntax, fact, and articulation. Not that I expect this formulation to last, as it's much too clear and honest for Wikipedia, but the revert will give me some ammo". --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the reverts of Calton's edits are honest in nature and mild in tone compared to his: "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt"; "What's this weird obsession with Google?" "Too bad, so sad". I have made substantial contributions to this article, and Calton has done nothing except revert my edits. That's not a content dispute, it's harassment.RichardBennett 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the article to include a direct quote of what Kahn actually said in the cited source, if anybody still cares at this point. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced your quote with a fuller quote with more context and clarity. But this is not a content dispute, it's a dispute over one editor who does nothing but revert another editor's contributions, ad hominem. Calton is another EssJay, doing his best to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.RichardBennett 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ad hominem WP:KETTLE? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton started the abusive language, not me. Find a single instance in which he/she contributed to the aricle except to revert me. And your recent contributions have assigned the wrong references to quoted material. Please try to be more careful, as you've done it twice how and it's getting tedious to correct your errors.RichardBennett 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil during conversations here on AN/I. another editor is trying to help, and your reply is that it's 'tedious to correct [his] errors' is if not outright hostile, dismissive of his efforts. If being helped is tiresome, maybe you should sit back and let others sort this out. ThuranX 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My concept of "being helped" doesn't include people mixing up the citations on two different quotes, repeatedly. Block Calton from Net Neutrality and we're done. RichardBennett 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you probably mean "ban", rather than "block". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about the citations, but this belongs on the relevant talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation in reference desk question

I have objected several times now to the characterizations made against Howard K. Stern in a Reference Desk question, and have now twice removed libellous attacks against him, but my removals are being reverted - [28]. Could someone please delete the question from the reference desk so that the libel does not continue? Thank you. Corvus cornix 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the contribs of Nocternal (talk · contribs) I cannot help thinking that this is one of our perennial troublemakers. Pitching right in with edits on a Matrixism discussion and other such trollery? Not what you'd expect from a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New edit war at Giulio Clovio

I'm edit warring at Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) and BarryMar (talk · contribs) are inserting unsourced (or very poorly sourced) claims & adding their personal comments to the body of the article.

The issue has been brought up here before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive184#Slow-pace edit-war at Giulio Clovio).

I don't provide any diffs to the edits because it's basically a constant back-and-forth revert war: choose any recent revert example from the article's history :-)

In the article's talk page, either see Talk:Giulio Clovio#Latest changes (quite long, but pretty focused), or simply concentrate in its "On Clovio's origin" & "On GiorgioOrsini's sentence" sub-sections.

Any help (like fully protecting the article or at least making a few short comments) would be more than welcome :-)

Thanks already. Best regards, Ev 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. —ptk✰fgs 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This goes beyong the scope of a mere page protection. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) has been edit warring about this article for months in a row. I have suggested in the past for him to try dispute resolution to no avail. I would appreciate if another admin can take a look at this as I would rather not having to use the tools myself in this instance. --Asterion^talk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik

I am writing to report persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik at Talk:Safavid Dynasty. Here are the instances with diff links:

• "What the hell are you talking about?!", "What's wrong with you?!", "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason...", etc. at [29]. I warned the user and said that I will ignore his attack for now [30].
• After the first warning, User:Tajik again: "this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV" [31] and for the second time, I warned the user kindly [32]
• Another attack: "do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong"" [33]
• In my response to my reference to precise quote from Friedrich Nietzshe unrelated to the user [34], the response and blackmail warnings from User:Tajik were at [35]:

• "I ask you for the last time to stop lying",
• "You also continue your lie",
• "So please stop to continue your lies and I once again remind you to watch WP:CIVIL",
• "So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying",
• "The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all"
• "you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text"

Please, help to address the issue. I have exhausted all available means to convince him to stop attacking me. Atabek 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Those look a lot like people in serious disagreement, not personal attacks. I'm sure things are hot, but the best solution is probably the mediation cabal. You need referees and umpires, and not really anything administrative, from what you've posted. Geogre 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• But lack of administrative action would essentially encourage such attacks. It becomes hard to discuss anything in civil manner on talk pages, when one of the parties is constantly trying to attack you like above. Atabek 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These were not personal attacks, but facts. I had warned Atabek before not to repeat his false claims about me. Yet, he ignored my advice and continued to repead those false claims. And this is exactly the definition of "lying". Reporting these minor comments and purposely interpreting them as "personal attacks" is just another attempt by User:Atabek to provocate me and to give me a bad name. keeping in mind that he himself is under constant watch by admins, and that he is known for POV pushes, in part Turkish-nationalist ideology, and especially some kind of anti-Armenian sentiments, I do not think that he is in any position to critisize others. Just take a look at this comment: [36] Also take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision. User:Atabek is also known for using sock-puppets in Wikipedia in order to falsify information and to push for POV: [37].

Tājik 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope the administrators can see now that the negligence and leniency only encourages the attacker. Tajik, you should not talk much accusing me of allegedly "anti-Armenian sentiments", unless you want to be dragged into the relevant ArbCom case and present your "evidence" there. Meanwhile, I will pursue the case with your personal attacks until the justice is served, just like it is and should be served with any of us. Atabek 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic

I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Wikipedia Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. Dean/Bryan's FR post - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an Arbitration matter and should be deferred to injunctions as part of arbitration. Please ask for an injunction or a remedy on the Arbitration workshop page. --Tbeatty 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An injunction is what is called for at this point. --BenBurch 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note In that post, Dino reveals himself to be BRYAN, who is Indefblocked already. Apparently he's discarded the fiction the two are brothers. I will ask for an injunction and immediate enforcement of BryanFromPalantine's indefblock I misread his sentences, but please note, Bryan admits that DeanHinnen is acting as his proxy on this matter. SirFozzie 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Corrected statement, SirFozzie 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Tbeatty is correct that a motion may be made or proposed findings suggested on the arbitration workshop page. SirFozzie, please be more specific about where in the article you believe there is an admission that Dean is Bryan. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See my corrected statement, Brad. I have struck through the statement, and apologize for the misstatement. I have posted a request for an injunction on the Arb Workshop page. SirFozzie 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No surprise that Bryan wouold do this; he is already banned. The evidence that Dean=Bryan is on a web site we would not normally consider a reliable source for articles. I will try to make Fred aware of the situation as he is getting ready to write the proposed decision. Thatcher131 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally...the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop pages have become such a mess that it is an eyesore whenever I try to read it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad - I posted there earlier today about what I felt was another legal threat from Dean/Bryan and it didn't get a peep - so I thought it better to post this here. I reposted this to the RFAr workshop and evidence talk pages too. - FaAfA (yap) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been warning all of the parties for weeks that the evidence and workshop pages would be rendered useless if everyone didn't control the quantity of verbiage. At this point, at Thatcher131 says, a proposed decision will soon appear and the case will be close to finishing up. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It would help if it was completely silent during the voting phase of the case. However, some may just cry "arbitrator abuse" or the like... --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-OH! Too late! I hope Fred has a good sense of humor! LOL! - FaAfA (yap) 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. :) --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody wanna help me block open proxies?

The George Reeves Vandal/BoxingWear person has been vandalising my user talk page ever since I protected his favorite vandalism target, the talk page of Rocky Marciano. Every one of his IPs which does not begin with 66.99 or 64.107 can be reliably blocked as an open proxy. If anyone wants to help I'd sure appreciate it.

Bigger issue: does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this persistent pest? He reserves his worst abuse for the people who try to reason with him, so beware. He edits from the Chicago Public Library and Triton College (that's where he's at tonight, at least until they kick him out). Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the public library but have you tried sending a note to Triton? JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's a pain while it's happening, but think of it as a service to the project - the more open proxies we find and block, the better off we are :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. He can help us smoke 'em out. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

75.24.220.143 (talk · contribs)

Thread retitled from "Vandalism".

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.220.143 This guy is vandalizing pages. DanDixon 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. You'll want to report them to WP:AIV after the appropriate warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one's a little different

68.98.50.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to make useful edits but also pretty regular vandalism. That could be a sign of different users at the IP, but I don't think so. The vandalism isn't at the "poop" and "penis" level, it's actually a tiny bit clever; and twice when I've called him on it he's responded on my talk page in a light-hearted manner, essentially saying that his vandalism should be accepted because it's funny. In a way, this makes him a more dangerous vandal than the poop/penis crowd, or the X-is-hooooot crowd, whose vandalisms can easily be spotted. But he doesn't do it often enough to justify a report on AIV. So what should I do about it? Zsero 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs, it seems like an Irish-American knowing Russian well and Japanese lightly, with a fascination for guns and fire, racist, with a weird sense of humor, from Arizona. You realize I'm not gonna sleep at all well tonight?

Seriously, gotta be more than a couple people, at least one of which knows Russian and is helpful. Prove me wrong, however, and I won't sleep well at night. :) Shenme 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

Resolved

Howdy folks, I'm participating in a DRV and would like a quick sanity check on something. An article I speedy deleted on Jan 19 has been brought up for deletion review, and that's fine. We can't get 'em all right, and if it was an error, best it be resolved. But I'm perceiving an odd belligerence from another admin in the discussion, and I'd like to know if it's my imagination or not. The specific discussion is at this deletion review, and the admin in question is Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If I need a knock on the head, well, that's good feedback too I suppose. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as hostile as someone else who was similarly unhappy with a deletion of mine, but yeah, a little unnecessarily belligerent. So what? Grandmasterka 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being overly sensitive. Perhaps you were a little overzealous with this speedy delete, perhaps not. In borderline cases it is a good idea to ask for a second opinion, one way of doing this is to tag the article and let some other administrator delete it. But I don't think you did anything that was clearly out of line - provided this is not something that happens to you on a pretty regular basis, in which case, I would invest some self-reflection, just to make sure you're not growing a bit "trigger happy" with speedy deletes. I also think that by insisting on justifying your actions to the other admin, you were acting defensive and not letting the matter rest, which contributed to the other admin putting his/her guard up. This is really quite a small matter, no harm done on either side, you should probably just let it be. --woggly 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for the record, I didn't post anything until the admin in question said "Overturn, invalid speedy. The article needed sources, but nothing was atrocious and it wasn't even tagged. Unnecessary unilateral action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:46,", so he established his tone before I made a peep, but I appreciate the feedback. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Thread refactored]

The topic and header of this request has been refactored and removed per this Arbitration ruling/request. The content of this thread has been forwarded to the Arbitration Committee per their explicit request in the aforementioned. I respectfully ask that no user continues this discussion here or elsewhere.

The user that was blocked has been unblocked by Zscout370, presumably pending pending a ruling by the Arbitration Committee on the status of their editing abilities. Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a disapproval on my part towards the block or the unblock, but merely procedural per the Arbitration Committee's expressed wishes.

If you wish to contest my actions in this case, again, can it please not be done here, but rather on my talk page. I also respectfully request that, if an oversight/arbitrator deems it necessary, that the revisions prior to my edit that had the information in this thread be removed from the history. I hope I have everyone's understanding in this case. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have withdrawn the respectful request regarding oversight. As a PS, I have sent an email to ArbCom's mailing list with links to appropriate discussions/information, as well as a copy of the discussion prior to my refactoring. I thank everyone for their understanding whilst the Arbitration Committee deals with this, per their expressed request. As I noted in my email, "[t]he refactoring was done on the basis of the comment by Fred [linked] above, presumably with the idea that [the details] remains private whilst [the Arbitration Committee] decide to do with it. If such an action by me was inappropriate, please forgive me, as I was acting in good faith". The Arbitration Committe has also been directed to the deleted userpage, which - in my opinion - should probably remain deleted pending the AC's input. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chuck0

Resolved

This user has been warned before for making personal attacks: [38] His latest attack is particularly vicious. He just said this to another user: "Why are you such a fucking retard?" [39] Please do something about this disruptive and abusive individual. Rapartee 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks by replacing them with {{rpa}}, and I've warned the user. Wodup 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually like being a full time nag, but RPA is more controversial than NPA. You don't indicate which of the places you removed attacks. If it's the article talk page, then at least archive the "personal attacks" to the user page. The user's talk page is probably not the best place for any RPA's. Geogre 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lopez Sockpuppet

Resolved

Another sockpuppet from multiply indefinite banned troll [User:Ray Lopez]: [User:Curve_Makes_Newberry]

Continuing his campaign of defamation: [40]

Stirling Newberry 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'scone. 〈REDVEЯS〉 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Peronal attacks COI discussion,

Allegations of making incivility and personal attacks were made against me in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_claims_of_COI. I was not informed of this discussion till after the discussion was closed. I suggest we reopen the discussion to give me the opportunity to answer the allegations against me, expalain the nature of the WP:COI and to allow the community to voice its support or opposition to the educational block Jayjg says he will impose on me. I personally see the repeated threats to block me as a misuse of administrative tools to intimidate editors with an opposing POV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has taken any action against you. What are you concerned about? -- Avi 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg stated "I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future." I was specifically named in this context. Once the block is in place, I will have no means of raising my questions here. I would also like some clarification about whether an admin is allowed to block a user withwhome he is personally involved in a dispute, and what safeguards exist against admins using their tools to intimidate editors who do not share their point of view. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Once a user has been informed of their misconception/misunderstanding, I believe that improper warnings are considered vandalism, as is gaming the system. So while "educational" may be a poor choice of words, preventing disruptions in the forms of maliciously or conciously misapplying policy for the purposes of, for example, pushing a point of view, whitewashing a target, attacking an editor as opposed to content, would all be valid preventative blocks. Does anyone else disagree? -- Avi 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved

. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I described above, while the wording may have been somewhat terse, the concept appears valid - in that blocks to prevent editors' disruptions are allowed and in-process. I would appreciate if other admins chime in on this. -- Avi 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has the appearance of forum shopping. Abu ali has petitioned me for an opinion repeatedly at my user talk page. Three days ago I asked him for substantiating evidence, User_talk:Durova#user_blocked_on_political_grounds. Instead of responding to that he opens a new thread here to renew basically the same claims. As I stated before, two of the grounds Jayjg expressed in the block warning were WP:POINT and WP:AGF. This ANI thread could be reasonably interpreted as violating both policies. While I remain ready to perform an impartial review on any specific evidence that might be forthcoming, I'll also note my empiricial observation that editors who forum shop instead of providing evidence very seldom have a legitimate case to present. I will not issue a block for this incident, but I would have no objection if someone else did. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali has responded at my user page and allayed some of my concerns. I'm still willing to perform an investigation and waiting for evidence. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If Abu Ali doesn't want to be blocked for personal attacks and inappropriate accusations of COI, he could stop making them. It's a novel solution, granted, but it's worth a try! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, I advised him to ask you (Slim) which particular posts you considered to be personal attacks and he tells me you haven't replied. I agree that COI allegations need to be substantiated with compelling evidence. Let's clear the air so everyone can get back to editing. Durova^Charge! 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Headphonos

Resolved

This user appears to be ignoring by multiple conduct warnings (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I would issue a block myself, but he had a lready personally attacked me ( diff). I think the warning stage has been exhausted. Thanks. El_C 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a short term ban, perhaps a week, with the explicit understanding that if these personal attacks don't stop, it'll be a month then an permanent ban for further incidents. I notice that such behaviour isn't exactly unusual for Headphonos. -- Nick ^t 11:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shameful behavior, lots of warnings over an extended period of time. I've removed your 24-hour block and made it a week, Nick. I'd certainly support a month's ban if the user carries on in the same way when he returns. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd support a month. He's been a thorny nuisance when I've had to deal with him. He gives Wiki a bad name. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no problems at all with a longer block, the guys contribs are shocking, [41] this being one diff that shows what exactly Headphonos is doing and there's a whole load of general troublemaking going on. -- Nick ^t 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- the most recent ANI material I posted regarding this user. --Keesiewonder ^talk 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 1 week by Bish. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Death Star III

I came across User:Death Star III at GAC, Check contribs. Basically this user has set up a fake user page and has been going around the wiki for some time creating bogus article (which should all be deleted) and making bogus GA nominations. Far as I can tell he has only been warned once. Something needs to be done about this user immediately, it is clear they are here to disrupt. They should be blocked indefinitely.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I could be wrong but that is my impression with recent edit summaries like "haha vandalized!" And nominations to GAC that are blatantly copyvios or one paragraph long. Perhaps I am wrong.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you expressed your concerns to the editor? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a notice on the users talk page about an AfD discussion, perhaps I acted prematurely. Just had some bad Wiki times lately I guess. Perhaps you could leave this thread open in case, there are some pretty blatant vandal edits in the history, could just be a kid based on an article created about a fifth grade teacher (deleted this morning) but the edits to the Enron stuff speak otherwise.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually deleted the article about the 5th grade teacher. It appeared as it was good faith (but nonetheless obvious speedy material). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, the contrib history looks really weird, almost torn between being a vandal and being a serious contributor. It's odd. I am going to post a message on the user's talk page. Perhaps they will respond.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I placed a message on the user's talk page. Can their talk page be deleted if it isn't corrected? I am not really sure how that works, the guidelines and such seem a bit ambiguous (on purpose I assume to leave plenty of leeway for discretion) The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general nor have they been a member since 2006 far as I can tell by their contrib history. Is there a way to verify that?

In the meantime I nominated one article Hiatus Road for deletion and tagged a copyvio Timeline of Plantation, Florida for speedy.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general" - He's clearly not a dark lord of the sith, or an ageless immortal, either. --Random832 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Faking credentials isn't a violation of any wikipeda rule I can find. It's a violation of the communities trust... and thats different. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to publicly apoligize for the false information on my userpage i would also like to apoligize for vandalizing pages. i hope you can forgive me and welcome me back to wikipedia. I can understand you deleting Ilene Miller though please don't delete Hiatus Road and Timeline of Plantation, Florida --Death Star III 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this user is adequately trying to reform. Death Star: The Hiatus Road article is up for community discussion, which you can join in, follow the link on the article's page. I think this thread can probably be closed. Thanks for your help folks, sorry if I jumped the gun, better safe than sorry I guess. As for the credential thing, yeah I kinda thought so. Hahaha, yeah he is obviously not a Sith Lord, but those can't be claimed as actual credentials.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:djf2014

Check the history. Metsbot replaces television on my user page with :Scepia/TV Djf2014 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bug in MetsBot. You should notify Mets on his talk page. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

protracted Edit war at Europe with one party refusing to discuss at all

There is borderline vandalism going on at Europe for several days now, with a problem editor who repeatedly blanks out the Norwegian flag with the listings of Svalbard and Jan Mayen from the list of regions within Europe, but refuses to account for this action on the discussion. In his latest edit summary, he said there is no need for him to discuss or explain his views because he is simply right and all the editors who revert him are wrong, so with one party refusing to come to the table for discussion, the edit war just drags on and on. What else can be done? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am restoring this section from archive, because it was swept under the rug on the same day without an adequate resolution. The contant blanking of Svalbard continues at Europe with sockpuppet accounts refusing to discuss one word, even though the page had to be protected to stop all the IP blanking. Please some admin look into this

and don't just try to pass the buck to a different burocratic office. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it borderline? There's no justification for that, it seems to me. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I say borderline because he may have some content dispute, but he isn't making it on the discussion page. I had to do my own investigation, and found the same editor has proposed the article Svalbard and Jan Mayen for a deletion, so that sems to afford some clues, but when I asked him (via edit summary) to wait for the outcome of that afd, he replied (via edit summary) that it was "irrelevant"... As best as I can piece together from his summaries, his beef seems to be that because Norway considers them sovereign and fully integrated parts of Norway, there is no need to mention them at all in a list of geographic areas found within Europe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it seems to be a WP:3RR violation. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have probably also been guilty of breaking 3RR myself in reverting him, because it seems vandalism and not the proper way to make his point by avoiding discussion or explanation. What I really want is to somehow get him to discuss the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Post a 3RR warning and if he continues, go to WP:AN3. Or maybe an admin will come around soon and help you. Maybe a warning will encourage him to start talking. Xiner (talk, email) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And if he's deleting the Norway flag, it may be considered vandalism as well as a content dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A less attractive but possibly necessary alternative is to seek full protection at WP:RFPP, since it's an edit war involving registered users. Xiner (talk, email) 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the only Norway flag he is really deleting is the little one identifying who own the territory, along with the listing of the territory... It's not like he is deleting all of the Norway flags on the page...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, this may be a candidate for WP:LEW. --Random832 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I became involved in this fairly recently, but here is what I have seen. The problem is with User:Dagnabit, who has removed or altered a number of references to the Svalbard and Jan Mayen article, including this and this. While some changes (such as [42] this) may have been justified, the bulk of them are not, as they specifically refer to the ISO designation (and UN identifier) Svalbard and Jan Mayen, and linking to the two separate articles is incorrect. In the case of the Europe article, it is a content question whether there should be a separate entry for "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" on the table, but Dagnabit appears to have refused to engage in any constructive conversation, merely claiming everything to be "nonsense", "vandalism", etc. Recently identical reversions (with incorrect "minor" designations and "vandalism" summaries) have been taken up by anonymous IP addresses, with the obvious implications. The article appears to have been recently sprotected by User:Gnangarra, but the last reversion was by new user User:Notable sam, a single-edit account created 4 days ago, and thus just able to bypass the s-protection. I don't think full protection is needed right now, although it will be interesting to see if any other "sleeper" accounts show up.

If you look at the Svalbard history, this appears to be an ongoing editorial battle by the same individual, previous using accounts named User:Tapir2001 (the signature phrase "stop making up facts"). Any admins considering this may also want to view the editing interests and user page style of User:TexasWalkerRanger - David Oberst 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, he also failed to delete the article where all this is explained, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, but does not seem inclined to give up the struggle... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Info999

I think this user needs a reminder from an uninvolved 3rd party about WP:CIVIL. The brief history is this. I made an objection known about an edit [43]. Info then ignored my points and responded with this. I sent an informal warning to Info on his talk page [44]. However, the user continues to assume bad faith and went on to make more attacks against Hybrid and me. [45]. I am placing this here because I don't think anyone should be blocked for this.. But a friendly reminder from an admin, may help to defuse the deteorating situation on this article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party

There's a lot of POV pushing going on, and removing of cited material by anon-IP's. It would be advantageous for this page to be semi-protected. GreenJoe 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

Just to keep this discussion centralized: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_stuck--VectorPotential^Talk 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

J. Allen Hynek

• A non-registered IP keeps brining up an edit done by a specific user. I have tried looking at the August 22, 2006 edit history of the article to see what the non-registered IP user is trying to say, but I cant seem to find anything of the sort. Could somebody help clear this up? -Nima Baghaei (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• These are the only two edits I can find to that article on April 22nd, perhaps 84.133.54.222 (talk · contribs) is thinking of another article? They've also made mention to the german language wikipedia, is it possible that they're thinking of the same article, but on a different wiki?--VectorPotential^Talk 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, since it looks like you two are reverting over a source, I believe the source they're referring to is in the edit they describe, ie (Jacques Vallee, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, Ballantine Books, 1991; ISBN 0345371720)--VectorPotential^Talk 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The user who removed this passage initially gave their reason in the article's Talk:J._Allen_Hynek talk page, please look here, they say Allen never said this -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The partial quote "I have come to support less and less" does result in a handful of google hits, hard to say if they're primary sources or not, either way you're both well over the threshold of the 3 Revert Rule--VectorPotential^Talk 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• woops sorry bout the reverts ... hmm well the user who removed it initially was User:CharlesFort -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Who has all of 2 mainspace edits, so perhaps you should take his statement with a grain of salt--VectorPotential^Talk 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Im confused (:O( -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• CharlesFort (talk · contribs) seems to be a single purpose account, which means you shouldn't necessarily discount the anon, I have no opinion either way--VectorPotential^Talk 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• ohh gotcha, does anyone think they could get a copy of the book from the library and check if this is true? I am gonna see if my library here at school has it (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• A little research shows that Google Books in fact supports the quote--VectorPotential^Talk 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• of course that is a proven quote, and thanks to Vector for yet another source. You should also know that the users "CharlesFort" and "Bwilcke" represent the same person. For these kind of changes "Bwilcke" (and most of her double-accounts) were already banned from the German Wiki indefinitely. 84.133.40.99 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tracked down what appears to be German Wikipedia's Block Log, although I'm not quite sure since I don't speak a word of German, here's the google translation, yep, defiantly their block log--VectorPotential^Talk 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• woho yah your right, ok I have cited the google book as a reference to (:O) ... I guess this issue is settled then? (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan (talk · contribs) sock and personal attack

This is a new user, who immediately jumped to edit the page created by one of the socks of Robert599 (talk · contribs). And he further attacked two users, calling them as "Vandals" here [46] Thanks. Atabek 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpage by Saikano

There's a new user I've been trying to WP:ADOPT and steer the right way (somewhat unsuccessfully). The user has a history of inappropriate edits, but is not a vandal-only account. Recently I noticed this diff. I'm not quite sure if it should just have gone to AIV or if someone else should have a word with him. —dgies^t_c 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I recall a report on this user on this page previously, too. x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was, regarding his userpage and signature, I believe. A similar issue. As to the matter at hand... mm, I don't know. From a look at his contributions, his behavior seems to have gotten a little better, but at the same time, I don't know whether he's ever made any useful contributions. Not sure I'd write him off just yet. Will drop him a note. Shimeru 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

His behavior hasn't really improved. We told him to make more article space edits if he wanted to improve, but he hasn't. He continues to try to use Wikipedia as a social networking site and hub for his non-notable anti-child porn organization. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just nominating it for MfD and I saw it already went through one a few weeks ago for much the same nonsense. I have tagged as CSD G4. —dgies^t_c 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block of User:DoDoBirds and User:Rajsingam

Resolved

I had blocked Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account DoDoBirds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio at Image:MNLicensePlate2.jpg

How long is the duration of the block for the copyright violation at Image:MNLicensePlate2.jpg? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks tend to be given to copyright violators if they persist despite warnings. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion - Removal of a userbox

I recently removed a userbox [47] here from user:Embargo. It appears as though the version i removed was vandalized (I am not too sure). Now, Embargo is claiming that I have vandalized his page, and several other things. I just wanted to make sure that my actions were appropriate to remove the version of the userbox listed above. If it was innapropriate in the eyes of other admin, I will have no issue apolagizing to him however, I feel anything that states, that they support the massacre of another people is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I actualy made a mistake above [48] is the diff where I removed the userbox, the one above shows the userbox before I removed it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Er... yes, that certainly seems like an inapppropriate userbox. I think you did the right thing. I'd say you might have requested its removal, first, but judging by his talk page, that's been tried unsuccessfully... several times. Shimeru 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There was previously a fairly long discussion about User:Embargo's userbox... I have no idea what the final consensus was, but I believe most had accepted his most recent version. --Onorem 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he changed it back after I removed the bad version. The version I removed stated, "This user supports Hezbolla to israelli massacres." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(EC) The version that reads "This user supports [[Hezbollah|resistance]] to [[Israeli]] [[massacres|hostilities]]."? Really? Strange. Shimeru 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just trying to provide some background for any interested. And you had asked on his userpage for a discussion that said his userbox could stay. The "bad version" had been altered in this edit earlier today. I'm assuming that Embargo didn't notice the changes when he reverted the rest of the vandalism. --Onorem 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I was looking for. I have no issue with the current revision. Thanks for the background, much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I do, though. If the content is unacceptable in the open, then it's unacceptable when it's "hidden" behind pipes, too. I'd think this would be pretty obvious; I mean, nobody would support a userbox that read something like "This user thinks <insert ethnic group> are [[rape|really]] [[murder|nice]] [[evil|people]]". Would they? Shimeru 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are at it and on this subject, User:TheKaplan has restored "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" after removal as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive73#User:Embargo

I have aksed him to remove it. It appears as though his intentions of having it there are to Make a point per this quote ("And I probably would have cleaned this one out with all the other superfluous ones, but since someone tried to remove it") located right above it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by Embargo's edit summary, reverting Chrislk02's removal of hostile material here : "Garbage..."??? that can't be civil at all. ThuranX 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Rex Germanus

I ask fellow administrators for feedback over an unblock request which was posted by this user and was apparently willfully ignored for 24 hours. Please see this section and this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel your anger, but disagree. There are reasons for us to require unblock requests to use the form {{unblock|reason here}} and no other form. That reasons are, one, so that admins don't have to hunt through kilobytes of talk just to find the request; two, it facilitates the administration of unblock reviews because it provides boilerplate closure text; three, it makes several rejected requests (i.e., {{unblock-abuse}}) easy to spot; four, we can expect people who have been blocked for disobeying our rules to at least conform to this rule if they want to be unblocked; five, it compels the blocked user to actually write an unblock rationale.

In addition, I think your shortening of the block was out of line and discourteous to the blocking admin, whom I had already contacted for comment, proposing essentially the same result that you unilaterally imposed. Our blocking procedures require unblocks to occur by admin consensus, except in obvious cases. I'd expect more respect for procedure from an administrator. Sandstein 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't buy this. I am a frequent enough requests-for-unblock patroller to know what use that template is for. So: one you obviously had found the request already, or else you couldn't have answered it in the place you did. And, if you respond to a standard unblock, are you not going to read its context? Are you not going to try to make yourself a picture of what happened before and after the block? If there's a posting by a third party commenting on the block, are you not going to read it? (there were three or four, in this case). And when a fellow admin politely asks you explicitly to consider the request despite the lack of the standard template, are you going to ignore that admin's work? I even pointed you to the place where the request was; heck, I even gave you a link to a version of the page where the request did have the standard box. twoTo have provided your own copy of the standard boilerplate closure text would have been less work than writing out the response you did write (let alone having this discussion now). three You spot unblock abuse by reading the page history. four He did attempt to follow the rules; he was having a technical problem with formatting. five He did write out a rationale, and I told you where it was.

As for deciding this unilaterally, well, I did feel it had become a special case requiring special action. Besides, people had actually tried to contact the blocking admin; he had failed to notify the blockee in the first place and then failed again to rectify that when notified by a third party; then this morning I must have missed him by three minutes (he was active editing until three minutes before I wrote to him asking about that block). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Melt down on WP:AN/3RR - Am I really a bad guy??

Can someone please help me out? Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result: no block). I thought this was straight-forward. User:Smeelgova violated 3RR. I reported 4RR (just the facts, no drama); and an admin, User:Jossi, did not find 4RR; I queried nicely on his talk page (since removed by Jossi) and Jossi himself reopened the incident; I then asked for an editor to help me out with an anon post in the same article as I was already at 3RR; Smee, at 4RR, made it 5RR and I objected politely; Smee melts down and starts throwing muck at me on the 3RR noticeboard. And I am "harassing" him, proclaims loudly. I really do not know what to do anymore. Every time Smee violates 3RR in his edit-warring he acts all repentant and makes a big show of taking the specific article off his watchlist. But his behaviour doesn't change. Do you guys just want me to quit bothering you when I am the victim of 3RR? Then just tell me so as it is a big waste of time for everyone when I report a clear case of 3RR vio and have to jump through a hoop to get anything done about and sometimes that doesn't work either. I am at your command. Thanks. --Justanother 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) has been warned for disrupting the WP:ANI page before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. As to this particular incident, User:Jossi decided "no block". User:Justanother continues to push the issue. I have removed the page in question from my watchlist, even though no guilt was found. I have even removed the WP:AN/3RR page from my watchlist, for I no longer wished to respond to baiting/harassment. The use of this page for this issue is redundant and a disruption waste of time for admins, for as far as I know it is still pending at WP:AN/3RR, and/or has already been decided as a done-issue. We seem to be encountering a pattern of disruption, and personal attacks/harassment with this user, as opposed to contributing any useful constructive material to the project... Smee 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
  • NOTE: - Please also note that User:Anynobody has started an RFC with regards to this user's actions, at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother. Smee 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, it shouldn't have descended into an edit war to begin with, and discussion should have been had on the article's talk page. But your understanding of 3RR is slightly flawed: it only applies when the same reversions are made. If edits are different (such as the 4th edit you cited), then it is technically not a violation of 3RR. Note that that doesn't mean that a block for edit warring cannot be made — 3RR is not a guarantee that you are entitled to 3 reverts. But you were edit warring just as much as Smee. Also, you complained that an anon had readded a link that Smee had been warring to keep in the article, then when Smee REMOVED the link that he had warred to keep in, you accused him of making a 5th reversion, which is simply untrue. If, for example, Smee had made that edit rather than an anon, our policy instructs him to self-revert. Under your characterization of his edits, that would have been the equivalent of a fifth reversion, which is simply not true. Conclusion: stop edit warring, and let's discuss. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I appreciate the input. I must disagree, though, about your understanding of WP:3RR. Different material reverted is most definitely counted. Here is the applicable line, the second line and set in (for emphasis, I assume):

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

So clearly Smee was 4RR edit-warring when it I reported it and the only reason I bring up the 5th was to underscore that Smee still thought he could carry on reverting. --Justanother 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. For the record, that was added 2 days ago. I don't think I agree with the change, and it contravenes what in my opinion has always been the basis of 3RR. Was the 4th edit that you cited actually a revert of another editor's changes, or was it simply an edit? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, it was his 4th revert of one of my edits. --Justanother 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here quickly with some advice for the original poster. I noted with concern your following choice of language:

as I was already at 3RR

Please keep in mind that reverts aren't "credits" that can be spent. If I've misinterpreted your text above, I apologize, but if not, please keep in mind that, as mentioned above, discussion is the key to successfully resolving disputes and co-editing on the project. If you find yourself counting reversions, then you're missing an opportunity to repair the root cause of the issue. Lobbying cannonballs back and forth, looking for people to gang up, that's just a road to stress and grief, and in a world where Steve Gutenberg is a movie star, don't we have enough already? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you make a good point. To be honest, I just want to edit and if someone has a dispute with my edit then we can discuss. Smee has asked for 3rd opinions before after reverting my edits, and has been proven wrong before but that has not seemed to dissuade him from continuing to go after my edits. I just want 3RR to act as the buffer between an editor and a reverter that it seems to me to be intended to be and it will not be that buffer so long as it is selectively applied with Smee somehow exempted. --Justanother 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Karolina Kurkova article

Can an admin fully protect this article, there's been relentless edit-warring for months now, with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever, and it's persistent edit-warring. Semiprotecting it won't help, as it's just a battleground now, like The Game (game) was. --Jelstroppykazlinn 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— Jelstroppykazlinn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I don't see any signs of an edit war, however for some reason there do seem to be a string of single purpose sockpuppets trying to {{protect}} the article, yourself included, care to explain your position?--VectorPotential^Talk 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, there are only a dozen or so edits to that page over the last 3 months, if there's an edit war, it's invisible --VectorPotential^Talk 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scumbag (talk · contribs)

Continued from above, there is a second issue here, unrelated to the MTG sets. Scumbag (talk · contribs) has declared that he has no intention of following WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:WAF, or WP:FICT. When I noted this, I went through his contribs for articles that failed these policies and guidelines, to fix them. Examples include Ravnica, Cybran Nation, Tiberium, Aeon Illuminate, and Forced Evolutionary Virus, all articles written as though they were real things, with little reference to the real world and the only "references" being vague comments to the effect of "I took this from the game". Scumbag has taken this as some sort of vendetta on my part. I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Christ. I've blocked him. This is, of course, open to review, but I think it's important to take a firm stance here and tell him that, actually, we are going to follow WP:ATT and WP:WAF. Edit warring is one thing, but edit warring when you've admitted that you don't give a monkey's toss about policy is another. – Steel 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading that, I support the block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as an addendum, you might want to add WP:OR to the list of things he doesn't feel are valid. - J Greb 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with 24h block, would support longer block in case of any further edits made pursuant to his own "policies". Sandstein 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:OR, and something else were merged into WP:ATT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sometimes I disagree with policy, but that's because (1) keeping up with policy can be a full-time job in itself, so I just use common sense, & (2) if I've made a serious mistake, I assume someone will follow behind me & fix things -- just like people correct my typos & misspellings. Saying that I'm going to take on the Wikipedia community over disagreement about various policy (rather than explain why I think they are wrong), is not helping the project; it's just being a troublemaker for its own sake. -- llywrch 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, am I the only one who questions the appropriateness of Scumbag's username? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's blockable as a sexual reference. The term has been watered-down somewhat in contemporary usage, but back in the '60s and '70s it was most commonly used as a proxy for the term condom.[49] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Probation

User:Karl Meier who was put on probation after edit waring on Muhammad cartoon incident now is involved in edit war on images in Muhammad/images article. Here are his todays reverts [50],[51]. Not only in Muhammad article but on my talk page (four reverts in one day [52],[53],[54],[55] which I consider it harrasment, if not violation of WP:3RR) and on doing disruptive editing on Islamophobia. Here are his three revert of 5th (one day) [56],[57],[58]. I think there will be other such edits if you would look into his contribution. Is there anyone who can enforce his probation?--- ALM 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this posting please note that User:Karl Meier has been previously plauged by anon-IP wikistalkers who've systematically reverted his edits. In following some of the histories of the articles that Karl Meier has been editing on of late it appears as though he is currently undergoing another round of Wikistalking by anon-IP editors. (→Netscott) 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that I had been very briefly wikistalked by ALMScientist here[59] and here[60] but apparently ceased as soon as I called him on it[61] --ProtectWomen 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Those article are in my watch list and I have past edits in them. I even do not know you except those three edits then how can I stalk you (just based on three edits)? Who are you? -- ALM 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one these IP wikistalkers is a banned user.[62], [63], see [64], [65]. I have no trouble with the user (who has anyhow proved impossible to block) contributing per se, but it would be perverse to punish Karl for reverting his reverts. It's unfortunate that ALM scientist is willing to use this occasion to prevent Karl from participating in the Muhammad images discussion.Proabivouac 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridicules. How many times will you, ALM Scientist and your friend Itaqallah try to get me somehow punished for opposing the anon stalker that is following me around the Wiki? I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful, but fact is that WP is written according to its policies and not according to certain conservative Islamic ideas about what is and what isn't allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And regarding what happened on your discussion page. 1. One of the reverts was a self revert. 2. You made atleast 5 reverts and none of them was a self revert 3. Removing warnings regarding issues such as your very rude "no personal attack" violations against another editor is considered vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I didn't cared to report your behavior then, but if you do it again I can assure that I will report your unacceptable behavior. Personal attacks and vandalism against warnings against such behavior is not allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if not, the only result would be that you'd be banned from editing ALM's user talk.Proabivouac 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott is quite right when he said that a lot of your warring was against someone you had probably "dueled" against previously, this i wasn't entirely aware of when notifying Tony Sideaway. regardless, you are reverting, extensively, over a series of articles, purging a cat you believe is unacceptable (which the community has not decided upon yet, the CfD is ongoing). that's known as a content dispute. furthermore, i don't see you reverting any IP's in these particular edits[66][67][68][69][70][71], among others. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Personal attacks... ...is not allowed" .. do note that you just said: "I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful". ITAQALLAH 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys, ItaqAllah (who has been described before by another Muslim as a "wahabi editor") and ALM teaming up on Karl for edits by anonymous vandals that he reverted? It seems as if you are the anonymous IP's yourself. Why dont you guys let the anonymous IP's defend themselves? Other people are having problems with ALM due to his own edit waring - see here--Matt57 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for all Karl's reverts, but for the very first revert listed in this complaint, I'm the person he reverted, and I can say categorically he was 100% right to do it, and I'm glad he pointed that out. So, please don't take that edit into consideration. --Alecmconroy 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Willy On Wheels

Resolved

I was just leaving a comment on the Daniel Brandt AfD and why a non-notable person shouldn't have an entry in Wikipedia. I thought to myself "Willy on Wheels" doesn't even have his own page, so why should someone like Brandt have one. That's when I looked it up and it seems that something fishy is going on there. It looks like some kind of vandalism. Just FYI --ProtectWomen 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Merope 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

I am inclined to interpret this [72] as a legal threat, a rather debased currency I know but the user, Nocternal (talk · contribs) is very clearly a sockpuppet anyway (check the contribs) and this followup [73] reinforces it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any understanding of what this person is referring to? Newyorkbrad 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy warned him on his talk page with regard to this incident report. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to the reply. Yup. He seems to think that redacting the text is impeding a law officer or some such bollocks. Hard to see how he'd enforce it across the Atlantic anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the project, but I really do hope and prey that our law enforcement officials are not relying upon Wikipedia in order to solve active homicide investigations.  ;) Bitnine 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an obvious legal threat, and it's a good block, and I think indefinite is the right time period unless Nocternal can indicate some willingness to shape up, particulary given the sock suspicion. The more sophisticated trolling would be "I am a law enforcement officer engaged in an investigation, and am using the Wikipedia reference desk for my investigation", but unless Nocternal is really Clancy Wiggum, I don't buy it.  ;) (Also, technically he said that Guy was threating a law enforcement office, not an officer,[74] so I guess he's claiming to be the Barbados police station or something). TheronJ 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As the originator of the original complaint, I thought at first that it was a legal threat, but it occurred to me that he might be claiming that the actions of the person he has been making his comments about in the RD question is guilty of what he is charging on the User's talk page, and is not claiming that the User himself is guilty of those items. But I may just be taking AGF to the extreme. Corvus cornix 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly me. And here I was giving him the benefit of the doubt: [75]. Corvus cornix 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I will need a reliable source on that claim hehe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

What's happened to it?? It appears as though it's just a list, and the images do not display, what's gone wrong?? --sunstar net^talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, it's the __NOGALLERY__ feature, it turns the gallery into a list. Saves a lot of download time. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Aecis. Didn't understand what had happened there, thanks for clarifying. --sunstar net^talk 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's quite a backlog there, anyone feel like helping out?--VectorPotential^Talk 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This still needs dealing with. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

questionable account creation

Resolved

Beast88 (talk · contribs) has created five other accounts so far, including problematic usernames Aintnostoppingme (talk · contribs), Aintnostoppingme never (talk · contribs), and Ha unstoppable (talk · contribs). Some admin may want to keep an eye on this. Natalie 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue was also raised on WP:AN (by me), all accounts created by Beast88 have been indefblocked. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Natalie 00:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Essay controversy story is getting a rather large amount of notoriety with ABC News having just reported on it with a planned video report to be aired later on today. In light of that a good number of eyes are likely to be needed on this article. (→Netscott) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also judging by the number of editors who've changed from delete to keep / abstain I think it'd be safe at this point to snowball this article's AfD and subsequently remove its accompanying AfD tag from the article. (→Netscott) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not snowballed it, but closed it as no consensus (which is obvious). We can always revisit it later if necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that many editors have been working on this today to achive NPOV. The article was edited to follow chronilogical order and to refer to Ryan by name as little as required (and not at all in the intro). Concensus was reached that this would prevent the article becoming a bio and we felt that this is preferable as the news is more about Essjay the editor than about Ryan the individual. Please bear this in mind as many of these edits have been removed in the last couple of hours. - Regards - Munta 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Resolved

Can someone have a look at [76]? I was just doing a quick flyby (on the road right now) and was asked by the target of that attack if I could have a look at that edit. I think it's out of line, but would appreciate if someone here could look a little deeper. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say it is technically a personal attack, but it is most definitely not civil discourse. IrishGuy ^talk 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a rant, but not even I can see a clear personal attack. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Irishguy and HighInBC. A very long banter with very small eeps of snideness but not really any direct personal attacks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as always! I'll take care of it from here... | Mr. Darcy talk 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Xsp85 (talk · contribs)

Would someone neutral mind looking at the recent edits of the above user on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and, if warranted, leave them a message regarding the NPOV policy? I don't feel that I should do it myself because I've been involved with editing of the article. So far I think we've done a good job of maintaining a neutral article on a controversial person. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

I also would welcome some help with the above user - I left this report earlier, but it was moved to the archives without action. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

A vandal has been attacking pages I created. Apparently, I deleted his article at some point and he is quite mad. Thus far he has been Stopthepowermad34, Stopthepowermad35, Stopthepowermad36, Stopthepowermad37, Stopthepowermad39, and Oppsagain2499. Can someone keep an eye out? At some point I will have to log off. IrishGuy ^talk 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And he just made Stopthe powermad1. IrishGuy ^talk 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, he has admitted to targeting me here. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some new ones: St op the power mad45, User:Iore iff stop 'n you, and the lovely I am here to stop irishgy. Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shomari15 (talk · contribs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, vandalizing and uploading a large number of improperly tagged pictures, contributing to the huge backlog currently at WP:CSD. He only has a handful of useful contributions I can see. I'm going through his logs to delete his pictures, and I gave him a final warning, after considering blocking him indef on sight as a disruption-only account. (Just look at that talk page... And no blocks!) Please monitor this user and consider blocking indef if this continues... I really don't think it's worth our time trying to work with someone like this otherwise. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you did it now. Grandmasterka 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User reported at WP:AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm an administrator, I'm asking for review here. Grandmasterka 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I jumped the gun. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't (s)he given warnings for the vandalism edits? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka did warn him, just above your warning. A warning isn't defined by coming from a template or having a Stop icon in it, you know :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:18Z

Shomari15 reminds me a lot of Blobba (talk · contribs) who I recently blocked for a week, who also has sockpuppets... but I see one subtle difference in MO which I won't mention here. This pattern of behavior seems to be not uncommon -- either that, or a long-term troll that's much smarter than he pretends to be. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:21Z

Edit removal

Resolved

I was looking at users requesting unblocking and I found this edit by a vandal from last year. It has a name and a phone number so can someone removed that edit? I don't want some kid getting harassed if someone looks through the edit history. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Known bigoted user subtly subverting Wikipedia again

Hi, I would like to bring to your notice the noxious effect the user User:Dbachmann is having on Wikipedia. This user is a known to hold deep-seated prejudices against Hindus and Indians. His run-ins with Indian Wikipedia editors are well known.

This time, this user has gone ahead and created three redirect pages that link to Indigenous Aryan Theory page. The titles of the pages are

Hindutva revisionism [77]

Hindutva pseudoscience [78]

Hindutva propaganda [79]

As any mature reader can see, terms like revisionism, pseudoscience and propaganda are inherently disapproving and dismissive in nature. They give out negative vibes about the value of a theory even when used in isolation. To understand the unease they give to an average Indian reader, please try to substitute “Hindutva” word with Jewish or Christian, and try to feel the impact. If Wikipedia does not have any page like Jewish propaganda or Christian propaganda, why bestow this honor on Hindus?

This user, who amazingly is also an admin, has a long and winding history of offending Indians, which includes hurling choicest expletives at them. I would be interested in knowing if Wikipedia has any ideas to rein in this person.

Sisodia 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Dbachmann. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

let's delete Cargo cult science and Category:Pseudoscience then. Can't have terms on Wikipedia that are "inherently disapproving". dab (𒁳) 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFD. If the user is behaving in a way that cannot be resolved through disucssion, open a WP:RFC. Jkelly 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant User:Dbachmann. I corrected the spelling.

Sisodia 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those redirects are a bit curious. The article they point to currently has an interesting looking AFD. Your allegations are serious, though, and if you provided diffs, I'm sure they'd get looked at. Friday (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my accusations but I will spare you the diffs, because I am quite certain nothing is going to happen to him. This user is impervious to reason. Also, frequent leniency by the Wikipedia admins has emboldened him to a point where he fancies himself above the norms of civil language. Therefore I do not want to risk finding myself at the receiving end of his diatribes.

Please just ask him to delete these redirect pages. If I or any Indian editor tells him to do it, he won’t.

Sisodia 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking him simply because you say so is frivolous. If you are here to accuse us of negligence instead, then I suggest you review your own actions. We're trying to help you here, not to face a barrage of accusations, then have you whining that you're not getting your way because you're not cooperating. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if I am being uncooperative. I just did not want to scratch old wounds. But since you insist on proof, here is one as a sample

[[80]]

Here this user not only curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses, he also grandly proclaims that “Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)”. What a revelation! One billion souls disenfranchised with a stroke of pen! Does this convince you that this user needs some attitude correction?

Sisodia 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be good to mention that there is a current RfC on Dbachmann (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann), a related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory), and an ongoing mediation on Talk:Indigenous Aryan Theory. Just sayin'. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it already is, that is). Look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas while you're at it. It will also be instructive to review block log and contribs of Sisodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (was involved in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [Yes, this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in it for another two months, and then tsk me disapprovingly as you find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts from now] Thanks, dab (𒁳) 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User:geg

user:Geg

• 1.Possible sockpuppet. (not sure.)
• 2.Small wikistalking
• 3.Harassment.
• 4.Removing my comments on talk pages for no reason.
• 5.Removing a section in Kingdom hearts II for no apparent reason.

Both him/her and user:Apostrophe have been a pain in the butt for me lately. Could there please be a small block? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Diffs or it didn't happen. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Look at this diff for a lovely comment he made to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_II&diff=113227430&oldid=113227046 Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• That does run afoul of WP:CIVIL. However, there's no context of this so-called "sockpuppetry" and "harassment", and that section is pretty needless. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Sockpuppetry- Geg seems to act similar to Apostrophe, both harass me, both edit the same pages pretty much. Harassment- Both keep rverting edits of mine for no apparent reason, and will remove my comments on their talk pages, claiming i am vandalising it. (see their talk pages.)Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The section has a fair amount of trivia, and they dont even explain to me why. They just harass me while reerting the edits most of the time. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC),

• Geg and I both edit Zatch Bell articles. I guess he's my sockpuppet, too. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages. JuJube 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if we're allowed to post here but... Apostrophe and I are not sockpuppets; we just have the same editing tendencies. This whole thing stends from something that InvaderSora starting trying to add to the article [[Kingdom Hearts II] a while ago that Apostrophe and I and a few other users such as User:Urutapu, User:Axem Titanium, and User:Ryulong would revert due to it being irrelevent. InvaderSora has actually been blocked for it a few times due to 3RR and WP:CIVIL, though for some reason his block log is empty now. And the above comment is just due to my frustration and disbelief that someone would want to add something something like this to the article despite the overwhelming consensus that it should not be added. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also.. "And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages." Well, yeah there is, but not when it's obviously just him being smart by trying to act like one of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" guys. Also, I apologize to the admins for how immature this whole thing looks. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because i changed my name. And i stopped putting it under Trivia with other notable trivia things. Just because you and your little group dont like it doesnt mean it is irrelivent. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, this sounds like a content dispute. InvaderSora, have you tried using the article talk page? This isn't a matter for the admin noticeboard, no matter how much you think they should be blocked. JuJube 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

About the trivia, most Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TRIV discourage the use of trivia sections in articles, especially for something this unnotable. But yes, this is definitely a content dispute, and as far as I can tell he hasn't tried using the article's talk page. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, you're not an admin, so i'm sorry, but i'll have to ask you to stay out of it. Two, regardless of editing, he has been harassing me, and that's worth a block. Also, Apostrophe seems to often wikistalk me. Proof? He's reverted my edits at pages hes never edited before. The Trivia has more notable stuff to back it up. And i dont use the talk page, because nobody is going to care. Why should i be discussing it ont he talk page if you already remove my comments from talk pages for no reason? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, diffs or it didn't happen. User talk pages are different from article talk pages. JuJube 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Err... what? -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet the behavior will likely be the same. See Apostrophe and Geg's talk pages for the diffs. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't harrassing you until that one time when you kept provoking me. Simply reverting your bad edits isn't "harrassment". And yeah, I did check your contributions to see what other articles you may have edited with that stuff, but "Wikistalking" is defined as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I never had the intention of causing annoyance or distress to you, despite the amount you're causing me.

And like I said, I removed your comments from my talk page because of your sarcastic attitude about it. If you had left a normal message I would have complied. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC

I was NOT being sarcastic. If you think the edits are bad, then IMPROVE THEM! Apostrophe is wikistalking me, though. Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If people speak harshly towards you when you engage in disruptive hehaviour, don't do that, then! Uncivil comments have been made towards you by Geg[81] and Apostrophe[82]. This is true and is to be discouraged, but understand that this behavior was provoked through quantitatively worse behaviour on your part. As stated to you previously, administrator intervention is not meant as a punishment, but as an attempt to control or correct undesired behaviour. Administrative action is not required to prevent future incivility towards you from Geg and Apostrophe; the quickest method is simply to correct your own behaviour. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WORSE BEHAVIOR? SHOW ME PLEASE...Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get a link... oh yeah HERE :P JuJube 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring alone against concensus over fruit box packaging.

1. (no summary)
2. It is true, at least the fruit snack one.
3. (no summary)
4. (no summary)
5. You know what? leave me alone. I have plenty of proof that this is happening. Get off my back.
6. -sigh- You obviosuly aren't seeing the image.
7. (APOLOGIES FOR 3RR.. THIS GUY KEEPS MESSING IT UP) Source=Image. yes, it is notable. I will report you to an admin if you continue.
8. how so?
9. (no summary)
10. THERE. happy? let's at least mention it. (possible typos)
11. rv
12. and..?
13. RV. Want to get BLOCKED for HARASSMENT again? LEAVE ME ALONE NOW.
14. rv pointless removal.
15. rv- NOT pointless..

Note that multiple people were against you, all explaining that they believed your trivia to be unnotable. –Gunslinger47 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007 (talk · contribs) trolling? WP:POINT?

Parker007 (talk · contribs) has made several odd, somewhat disruptive edits: S/He has nominated the Misc ref desk for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposal_to_remove_Misc_desk_.40_Village_Pump and s/he's inviting editors to oppose her/his RfA. [83] [84] Looks like WP:POINT to me (making an unpopular move in order to garner oppose votes). I don't know if any action should be taken. Anchoress 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall Parker going on a WP:POINT spree a month ago when I deleted something of his as redundant, so this isn't a new thing for him. – Steel 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the current consensus on snowballing failing RfA's? His is at 1/11/0 at the moment. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind SNOW; if the applicant is actively campaigning against promotion, it's a bad-faith (self)-nom. Anchoress 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I delisted and closed it. Trebor 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There was (is? my killfile does not tell me) a troll called "Parker Peters" on WikiEN-l for some time who claimed, without much credibility, to be an admin. I wonder if this is related? Guy (Help!) 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Had this hunch after my last contact with him, but he wasn't doing anything disruptive at the time; maybe time to see if that blip on the troll radar is the real thing. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Endgame1 says this is likely; combined with his behavior, I'd say that's a yes. His past activities have been quite disruptive, but to be fair, he did apologize for some of his recent trolling; I'm somewhat hesitant to just block him, because his contributions under this account aren't noticeably worse than any other kid with more time and enthusiasm than anything else, and the sock you know is better than the sock you don't. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

This user keeps vandalising the IPodLinux page as well as putting personal attacks on my user page. His contributions are vandalism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him. Next time, use WP:AIV for this sort of thing. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going to put the entry there, but he technically isn't active now, unless I misunderstood and that active means recently and not that he's currently on a vandalism rampage. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user still editing

Resolved

User:Alaric the Goth was confirmed as a sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis about two days ago [85] but is still editing. Could someone please deal with him? Kla'quot 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Coredesat 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding permanent block, user Eoganan

Resolved

User:69.156.88.156 appears to be a User:Eoganan, who has been permanently blocked by User:Gwernol. Their IP addresses start with the same mnumbers (69.156) and the pattern of editing is the same. This user is highly disruptive, has a history of editing using different IPs and leaving racist abuse and personal attacks.

edits today

block by Gwernol

vandalism of my talk page today

previous vandalism of my talk page

previous evidence from IPs

Thanks for any help. Alun 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 month since it is clearly being used to evade the block on Eoganan and to make persistent personal attacks. Gwernol 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Ethnic Cleansing

Khoikhoi is continually removing any reference to the term "Bosnian Muslim" on the Ethnic Cleansing article, and is also trying to reword it in a POV manner at Bosniaks. I have provided 3 respected sources that show "Bosnian Muslim" is commonly used in the English speaking world, and it is in no way offensive to Bosniaks. Please someone help.

Also, I noticed that after I reverted Bosniaks, a user called Kraf001 reverted to the POV version - his first edit since 11 November 2006, which is almost 4 months ago. Coincidence? Former Anon 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's rights

Resolved

Can someone semi protect this asap? Apparently 4chan has it in their sights tonight. I posted to page protection requests at WP:RFP but it looks backed up. thanks, sorry if this is out of procedure. - Denny 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected by User:No Guru. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:08Z

Request for review

I recently blocked Master Cheif 001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for repeatedly violating copyright policies despite many warnings and a previous block. I have informed him here that if he can indicate that he understands the policies and will follow them in future I'll unblock him. I'm now going to bed and will be offline all day tomorrow, but if he responds favorably and someone wants to unblock him, please be my guest. Chick Bowen 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a common behavior to just keep uploading images and ignoring all warnings, perhaps because image policies are legalistic and hard? I blocked one recently (User:Blobba) and there's another one currently on AN/I (User:Shomari15). I don't see any easy solutions though. You did the right thing here. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:27Z

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see [86], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [87] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)