Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SlimVirgin removing image problem tags

Unresolved

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin.' D.M.N. (talk)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

Unresolved

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil.' D.M.N. (talk)

Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor).[1] It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner".[2] Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response and interest by CSWEM, and the concerns raised, I think that the next step is to file an RFC? Has anyone tried IRC to see if he is still on? seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the last time CSCWEM actually replied on his talk page was over 5 months ago. Needless to say, this is concerning if he is still using the tools while ignoring users asking him questions. I hope he will reply somewhere to clear this up. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The heavy-handed blocks of accounts I have zero problem with. There is no reason to preserve an account with only vandal edits, and if the user wants to become productive they can create a new account (not the same situation for an account with some productive edits and some vandal edits, in which case they may wish to legitimately preserve their contrib history after apologizing for and ceasing the aberrant behavior).

The heavy-handed blocks of IPs are not as cool, especially with the misleading block summaries. If he knew for sure they were static IPs and said as much in the summary, that wouldn't be so disturbing. But, as others pointed out, this behavior has been tolerated in the past, and could be tolerable now.

The failure to communicate, on the other hand, is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. "Ignore the man behind the curtain" is not my understanding of how adminship functions here on Wikipedia. Admins have a responsibility to do more than just play around in their little corner and ignore everything else. I mean, could you imagine if there was an RfA today and the candidate said, "I want the mop so I can block people, but I don't intend to help out anywhere else, do any sort of conflict resolution, and I can't really be bothered to answer messages on my Talk page."? Would there be a single support !vote?!

I remember several months ago seeing CSCWEM's edits all the time when I was doing vandal patrol, and I very much respected his quick response time, tirelessness, and willingness to get tough on vandal-only accounts. He was a great help to the project. But if he has altogether ceased communication with other admins, we can't have that, regardless of his other contributions. Sadly, I think I see a bit of rouge on this clown.  ;( --Jaysweet (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much difference between now and the last couple years except he doesn't respond at all any more. But he rarely responded back then in my experience. And someone would bring him up here and a few people would hollar but none of their records were spotless either and CSCWEM generally helps far more than hinders in his vandal-fighting efforts and the whole thing would disappear. I guess this is just a new guard now, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, isn't it? He doesn't respond at all to, well, anything. And that's simply not acceptable, just as it wasn't acceptable a couple of years ago. So in that regard, nothing has changed. Additionally, I don't think there's any point in blocking him, as admins can continue to use their tools while being blocked. At least it was like that a year ago or so, so maybe that's changed by now. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Maybe. But I see a big difference between "slow responses" and "no responses".

Also, maybe there is a reason why the "new guard" values dialog so much more highly than the old guard. The fact is, Wikipedia is accumulating a very negative public image because of the legions of people who show up, violate some policy, get reverted/warned/blocked, and it is never adequately explained to them what they did wrong. I have a close friend, for instance, who is going for a Master's degree in political science, and I know she has vast knowledge of The Federalist Papers, for which many of the articles on Wikipedia are very short (and sometimes misleading) stubs. But I am having trouble enticing her to contribute, because of an earlier experience on Wikipedia where she got reverted multiple times and it was never adequately explained to her what the problem was. (In fairness, she was doing a hatchet job on an acquaintance in another article in WP:COATRACK fashion, but she made the common new editor mistake of thinking that because it was "true", it was okay to add)

Let's say CSCWEM blocks a vandal, and the vandal doesn't understand what they did wrong, so they ask. If nobody explains it, they'll tell all their friends, "Yeah, I tried to edit Wikipedia but some guy called "ScaryClown" or something banned me from the site after like two minutes! Those guys are jerks and won't let me in their club!"

I was stunned the other day when I complained to my wife (who has a handful of edits here, and is a frequent contributor to our city's Wiki) that some people view Wikipedia as a "cabal of nerds who won't let you in their club unless you memorize a bunch of arcane acronyms" and she said, "Oh yeah, it's totally like that." And this is someone who is PRO-Wikipedia!

We have no shortage of vandal fighters. What we need in admins these days are liaisons to the public, ambassadors for Wikipedia who can articulately explain what we are all about and help people to understand how this place works.

As valuable as CSCWEM's vandal-fighting work is, there are at least a dozen or two dozen people clamoring to take his place whom I am sure could do just as good a job. If we are really in a shortage of vandal-fighters with mops, then start allowing RfAs for people with weak mainspace contribs. Seriously, how many RfAs have you seen get turned down because "We are sure you would use the mop responsibly, and your vandal patrolling work is good, but you just haven't done enough work building an encyclopedia. Come back when you have a few thousand more edits and have created a few articles."? If losing CSCWEM's vandal-fighting prowess is really a priority, that shouldn't be reason to decline an RfA, should it?

I think those declined RfAs communicate the message loud and clear: Wikipedia has enough cops. What we need now are ambassadors and mediators. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can counter your argument by saying that today's Wikipedia has a whole new culture of subtle POV/fringe/agenda pushers and that more policing is necessary rather than less. But then you could counter with stories of overly-paranoid admins who blocked legitimate editors who left forever because of it, etc., etc. If someone can point out especially egregious blocks or diffs (preferably in an RFC or RFAR or the like), please do. Otherwise, I view CSCWEM as one extreme end of a spectrum which also has an extreme opposite end somewhere (probably partaking in this discussion). —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an entirely different type of policing, though. If CSCWEM is working to combat the subtle pov-warriors, then I retract everything I just said! Anyway, Ncmvocalist has a point (below), so I won't drop another couple kilobytes of essay here ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no point discussing this here further - please take it to RFC or arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that the community is capable of handling. One of three things will happen - (1) he will return as an active user, respond to those who express concerns, and edit/use the admin tools normally; (2) he will never make a logged action again; or (3) he will continue this unusual pattern of blocking. In the first two cases, the problem is solved and there is nothing to be gained by arbitration. In the third case, there would be near unanimous consent for an indefinite block until such time as he agrees not to take those actions and if he violates that by unblocking himself (or, I've never tried it, but if you still have access to special:blockip while blocked and he uses it), there would be unanimous consent for an emergency desysop. Either way, I don't see anything to arbitrate - the problem will work itself out. --B (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In re: Blocked admins blocking other users, admins can block and unblock themselves or others while blocked from editing, per my extensive research (i.e. I tried it.) So, unfortunately, a block in this circumstance would not be effective. Given that CSCWEM has ceased blocking/admin actioning, I would recommend we strongly urge him to discuss the blocks and concerns before acting again, and that we take a failure to do so as an indication that arbitration (the only procedural means by which a user may be desysopped) is warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is with regret that I am starting to believe that perhaps opening an ArbCom to have CSCWEM desysopped pending a reasonable explanation of their actions may be the only way to resolve this. A RfC without the participation of the subject party is a hollow process, and is then only a step toward ArbCom; so that delay may as well be dispensed with.

I am extremely reluctant to take this step, since CSCWEM was the type of admin who inspired me in requesting the sysop bit and further help the encyclopedia, and I remember the helpful and invigorating presence he had when he was a frequent contributor to the noticeboards. However, I will make the RfAR myself if required, as I will attempt as far as possible to request the removal of the flag to be non-prejudiced in that CSCWEM may have admin rights returned by application to the Committee with a reasonable explanation and an undertaking to be more communicative in future. If there is a consensus for such a request I shall then do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think desysopping is in order, but maybe a temporary ban from blocking would be a good idea - until they can prove they can block appropriately...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe desysopping UNTIL we get an explanation, to prevent further such blocks...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to open an RfArb to do that, i.e. I don't think there is any process by which someone can be even "temporarily desysopped" without an RfArb.

I reluctantly endorse an RfArb, unless somebody has a better idea about how to get CSCWEM's attention. The aggressive blocking is probably tolerable, but the refusal to communicate at all is not. (In my humble non-admin opinion, that is :) )--Jaysweet (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• When an admin becomes this jaded it's a shame they don't have the self awareness to just ask to be desysopped for their own good and the good of the project. They could then take a nice long break without the temptation to log in and take admin actions that will likely prove controversial. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we would have to open an ArbCom case, but I think one's in order (in fact, I endorse it more the more I think about it), I'll give it about an hour and, unless someone stops me, I'll open one...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no blocks since May 28, and no contributions since April 1. What about we notify him of this thread (already happened, of course) and ask him not to do any more blocks until he is willing to discuss them? We don't need to desysop him for that, just ask politely. If he starts blocking again without any kind of discussion, then ArbCom might be the way to go, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Ok to me, I'll just mention that on the user's talk page and then - we wait...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have retired for the evening in an hours time, so I shall not be around to help as I would like. I intended to open a RfAR "tomorrow" (UK time) as it would allow any good arguments/suggestions to be made here in the meantime, as in this case it would be best if it was as uncontested a request as possible. However, if you wish to proceed I would only ask that you frame the request as an "unprejudiced desysop", pending clarification of the communities concerns. I feel the Committee and the community will better support the action if it is understood that CSCWEM may apply for re-instatement along with an reasonable explanation of both their actions and their lack of commucation. This would be my approach, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Dendodge) Communication is exactly the problem. It appears people have been waiting, and nothing happens. I agree (partly) with Ncmvocalist, it is time to act - but as considerately as possible. I am still intending to open a RfAR in 20+ hours if nobody has acted before, or has a better idea for resolving this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Communication, communication, communication - but we don't know if he's even around now. He's done nothing in over a week. How about wait to see if he ever becomes active again, then prod him for an answer. He may be on vacation now! I don't know if Arbcom would even look at a case under these circumstances. There's really no particular hurry so wait until he returns - if he ever does - to file an Arbcom case. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no urgency, since CSCWEM hasn't blocked anyone in about two weeks now. If the blocks and the non-communication resume, I'm all for an RfAR, tho. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's reading this I would urge CSCWEM to ask to be desysopped, no stigma should be attached to this, quite the opposite, such an action I'm sure would be applauded. Take a good few months off and when you're ready to resume communication with the community ask to be resysopped. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, ArbCom may totally agree with you and Wknight94 - but we won't know unless we ask. I would prefer to be turned down than to be reminded it is not good practice to lock the stable door afterwards... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait, but I was acting on (the) consensus (at the time). I'd be more than happy to have a RFAR ASAP...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I do not know about a request for arbitration. It may be premature, may be not. However, I have started writing an RFC (would be userspace, but someone else created the page): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I cannot possibly hope to complete it with diffs or analysis (I am not good at writing, and I forget stuff anyway). All others, please add and post in the meantime. I will sign on a later date; contact me in the rare possibility that no one else will sign it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, he has no logged actions in the last two weeks. So there is no evidence that the dispute has failed to be resolved. If he issues another block, then it becomes a problem, but as of right now, this RFC is uncertifiable and I would strongly suggest waiting until there is evidence that this dispute has not been resolved at this point. --B (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Those who are urging restraint are right - no blocks issued since June 11, there's a note on his talk page, leave it st that unless something changes. Neıl 龱 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the last block was late on 28 May, actually - so it's even less urgent. Agree with holding off a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this entire discussion late, & entirely disinterested ("disinterested" as in I will not directly benefit from its outcome), I'm concurring with the opinion that CSCWEM grew disillusioned with Wikipedia, went thru a "ban them all & let God sort it out" phase, then left. I'd even go a little further & speculate that he possibly left because no one noticed his aberrant behavior until now. (That does seem to be an obvious form of Wikisuicide. And FWIW his user page does mention that he is on Wikibreak, although that announcement seems to have been originally written last November.) In short, he's very likely gone. Now if someone wants to place an indef bock on his account to force him to explain his actions if/when he returns, well I'm not going to revert that -- but I believe the effort would be pointless. The same with an RfC or opening a case with the ArbCom. However, CSCWEM has listed a number of ways to contact him on his user page -- has anyone reached out to him for his side of the story? -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with waiting to see if there are any further problematic actions from CSCWEM before proceeding with an RFC, but my understanding is that these problematic actions have been going on for a long time, that concerns have been raised many times, and CSCWEM has failed to respond or change his behaviour in response to these concerns. However, the only thing that we are all interested in is stopping the problematic behaviour, so if people consider that waiting to see if the problem occurs again will be useful, I would have no objection (especially if there is a strong belief that he may have quit Wikipedia or switched to a different account). Looking again at his blocks logs there do seem to be long gaps, including April 25th to May 28th, and then a very short period in which a large number of blocks are issued - so the current gap of a couple of weeks may not be a strong indication of him leaving/changing account. In the meantime, there is the issue of the blocks (and possibly other admin actions) that he has carried out, which may be continuing to have a damaging effect. I wonder if, in the light of a failure to respond, there is consensus to review and undo any problematic actions. TigerShark (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What I forgot to mention in my paragraph above was a point which anticipated TigerShark's question. Common sense dictates that if an Admin leaves Wikipedia (or is thought to have left) has made a number of questionable blocks, then any other Admin is free to review those actions & either reduce the period or lift the block. We should be willing to do this even while assuming good faith in the actions of the vanished Admin -- after all that Admin may have acted without knowing the whole story, or simply made a mistake & confused two similar usernames. We are not reenacting the court-martial scene from Melville's short story "Billy Budd", where policy & procedure are more important than even human life. -- llywrch (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RfAR/CSCWEM

I have opened a Request and invite all the above parties and other contributors to make statements or provide opinion to help the Committee to decide whether to accept. I would also ask anyone who is in contact with CSCWEM to request that they participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The SRS

Various issues have been coming up revolving this user:

• He claimed that his account was hacked, and that somebody else was getting on his account to make userspace edits, and that it was not him. After Alison preformed a checkuser it was found to be that he was lying, and was making all of those edits. He has been warned time after time to stop making userspace edits, and get into namespace, and he basically refused to.
• He appears to be good friends with indefinitely blocked user User:SexySeaClownfish
• He created this video on his YouTube account. The link to his account was found on his userpage.
• He attacked myself, Alison, and even his adopter The Hybrid with a middle finger in ASCII form on his userpage, but I have since removed it.

He has recently apologized, but after all of this, I believe some sort of action needs to take place. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'd rather not express it. I will submit to whatever decision is reached here without objection. Cheers, The Hybrid 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor is 14 (and a half and a bit) years old and appears to act it. The contributions to the mainspace are generally in areas where there is a surplus of good editors (I presume, because WWF and its ilk mean little to me - and the little I know does not encourage me to learn more) and the rest is pretty much social networking and teenage moping. Perhaps this is an instance where the encyclopedia might take itself away from this person? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he should have his editing powers taken away if he called all of us a-holes. Altenhofen (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... we should at least delete his user page, that could calm his "MySpace" tendencies a bit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He'll prolly go nutz if you do that. Best off trying to get him to rationalize it a bit first, as we did with User:Hornetman16, back in the day. Has anyone tried this yet? - Alison ^❤ 23:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, to me going arround throwing tirades with sockpuppets of blocked users seems bad enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Myself and Hybrid has tried rationalizing with him best we could, and he doesn't listen. It's best for his page to be deleted. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I told him to take a Wikibreak. I, personally, would like to see him given another chance. However, if his page is deleted he'll go nuts, as Alison said. He messaged Ryulong after Ryu deleted SexySeaClownfish's page, and SRS sees deletion of a page as something very serious, to say the least. If you're going to delete his page, it's best to block him as well to prevent him from "expressing his opinion" about it. However, while I would like him to receive a second chance, I also have to acknowledge that he doesn't deserve it. Off-wiki attacks with a sockpuppeteer, false claims of hacking, and almost no productive contributions. If he's blocked, I won't protest. The Hybrid 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see this. He's clearly in contact with another blocked sock. I suggest getting the mop out... D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a 3 month block or page deletion would due, but be forwarned; he willed be P-O'd if you delete his page. I should know, look how I handled my page deletion (very poorly). But blocking, on the other hand might make him even more upset. Just a little heads up for you admin dudes. Altenhofen (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety - Swastika and Racist attacks

Resolved

Userpage deleted,editor indefed by User:Ryulong.--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk · contribs)'s behaviors draw my attention after he left a highly inappropriate comment on User talk:Flying tiger."show japs the picture of togukawa ieyasu on my page" At that time, he or she was spreading similar insulting attacks to other editors, so I visited his page and saw very surprising and unique user page ever.

Extended content

“ 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO CHINESE EMPIRE卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍10,000 YEARS TO THE EMPEROR卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍萬歲 皇帝卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍卍 If you lie once than everthing you say is a lie and i will revert all your edits. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Japan Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu- proof that Japanese look like fat ugly toads. RESTORE the Chinese Empire and put an emperor on the throne. This user is against Korean stealing of chinese territory in Manchuria and knows that the current border between north korea and china is actually BEHIND the limits of ancient chinese territory! id2 ALot of Korean claim manchuria and liadong peninsula is their lost territory LOL, just because Goguryo ruled it. Well i have news for them..... BEFORE GOGURYO EVEN EXISTED, HAN DYNASTY CHINA HAD COMMANDARIES STRETCHING ALL THE INTO THE KOREAN PENINSULA BEYOND CHINAS MODERN BORDERS, THEREFORE YOUR EXCUSE THAT MANCHURIA AND LIADONG IS KOREA TERRITORY IS USELESS BECAUSE WE CAN NOT ONLY REFUTE THAT, WE CAN CLAIM NORTH KOREA AS OUR TERRITORY...... ”

The first paragraph with a lot of Swastika says like "Heil, Imperial China! (卍卍卍卍萬歲 中華帝國) just like Nazi did to Adolf Hitler.

Besides, the user page has a section containing editors whom he/she thinks of not good, so gave a threat or improper personal/racist attacks to. Given that he registered his account 10 days ago, and he/she is highly likely a sock of some banned user, or any who may make edit warring with the Korean editors. I think the user page has to be removed and the user has to be blocked for his disruptive racist comments and assaults. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable examples

• japanese have small brains at User_talk:No_2_Hinoh, at User talk:Fourteenth hinomaru
• User_talk:Ishikawa_Minoru#your_comments_on_shanghai_talk_page... japanese people are a very primitive people, all japanese writing systems are derived from chinese or the roman alphabet....(the user Ishikawa_Minoru seems to have a serious problem too..)
• the article on the dumb german- russian

This is serious, and I don't see any good contributions from the user in question. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits, I came to the same conclusion. User page nuked out of the water, user blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, before the Germans ruined it for everyone, the swastika was considered a 'good luck sign'. HalfShadow 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, when you think about it. Anybody wearing one would need good luck to not get jumped.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, though I agree that the other content on the user page is at best inflamatory and at worst racist, you guys have misinterpreted his use of the swastika. From the Swastika page: These two symbols [卍 and 卐] are included, at least since the Liao Dynasty, as part of the Chinese language, the symbolic sign for the character 萬 or 万 (wàn in Chinese, man in Korean/Japanese, vạn in Vietnamese) meaning "all" or "eternality" (lit. myriad) and as 卐, which is seldom used. When he wrote "...卍卍萬歲 中華帝國", he's saying "long live the Chinese empire." Refer to the ten thousand years article also for more context. —Umofomia (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As a note: Nazi swastikas turn rightward, while all of the ones used by this editor turn leftward. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

May have been the only one to be had in the UTF-8 character set. This reversed version can still be seen in a non-political context in Japan, on maps, to mark Buddhist temples. Also, as I recall, the symbol was used by at least one tribe in the southwestern desert of pre-Columbian North America. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In either case, I collapsed the copy of the user page. Symbol of hate or symbol of good luck, either way that little piece of mind terrorism was starting to wear on me a little bit. heh ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite his style, but worth checking to see this isn't DavidYork71? The nick is his sort of thing and he had an obsession with Nazism. Orderinchaos 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake disrupting article, and in edit war with Tallicfan20

Look at this history. 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has had problems with edit warring and 3RR in the past, is now disrupting Democratic Leadership Council by engaging in an edit war with Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Additionally, 8bitJake is on probation, per this ArbComm remedy. Per that, I'm proposing 8bitJake be banned from Democratic Leadership Council, for a lengthy edit war, along with any warnings and/or blocks both users receive for this.

For the record, I need to note that I was involved in a previous content dispute with 8bitJake, which was resolved with an RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed that we had resolved the issue before you started this discussion. We had ended the edit war, and it was fine. So I think that we should put it back to how it was before you started this discussion, with this version. however, you can see, I was trying to reasonably resolve this from the start with logical discourse. Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to Nwwaew's version and protected. Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. FCYTravis (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. --8bitJake (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is because you were in a very severe edit war with another person. Reversion is standard in those cases. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

well jake, at this version it seemed our little war calmed down. I say we take it back to this version at that part and leave it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake, please WP:AGF. Anyone can edit any article, unless they are restricted by ArbComm or the community. And if I was an admin, I would have recused all use of the tools in anything involving you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your following me arround and Wikistalking me is harassment pure and simple. --8bitJake (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew

Resolved

 – nonsense Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) is Wikistalking me and has following me arround editing articles that he was not previously invoved with and making allegations against me. This harassment pure and simple He was not asked to get involved in these article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment.

If you look at his contributions to Democratic Leadership Council he came there with the only reason to harass me. He should be blocked and banned from articles I work on. --8bitJake (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This was right before he stalked me there [3] and removed all the work I did on the article. He had NEVER edited the article there before. He likes to think of himself as an admin.. despite him not being one. --8bitJake (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any disruption based on that one link. Is there more? Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, say what? I like to think of myself as an admin? What the hell? And how did I harass you on Democratic Leadership Council? The only actions I did on there were to revert to a pre-edit war condition (that you were involved in, I might note). And how do I have to be asked to be involved in an article to do something? If that was the situation, NOBODY could edit Wikipedia, PERIOD. We'd all be waiting for someone to ask us to edit an article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no lasting conflict between me and any other editors of that article. There was a disagreement between me and Tallicfan20 but we worked it out and reached a consensus. You just jumped in after stalking me and attempted to throw around authority that you never had. --8bitJake (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But WHERE did I "throw around my non-existant authority"? You claim I'm doing this, but you won't show me where I am doing this!!!! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He followed me to the article based on my contributions list (he has taken to task to follow me around and butt in and make constant allegations and threats) and reverted my work and then demanded it be locked. That is a pretty big disruption. --8bitJake (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please? I would like to see evidence of what I'm being accused of. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Before he followed me there [4]

After he reverted my contributions and demanded it be locked [5]

If you look at his contributions [6] or the edit history [7] of Democratic Leadership Council you will notice that he has NEVER edited the article before and only came there to harass me. He also nominated himself for adminship but it failed. So he has been running around assuming authority that he simply does not have. This needs to be addressed and he should be disciplined accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitJake (talk • contribs)

Okay, where did I demand the article be locked? I reverted the article, and requested you and the other party of the edit war step back, until this ANI discussion (the current one I started above) was done. And how does a failed self-nomination factor into this? Just because I failed two self-noms for adminship does not mean I have authority. The only authority I can even claim to have is the same any non-administrator editor on Wikipedia has. Namely, nothing that the community won't support- I can't just go around and ban anyone for any reason, no matter how good the reason is. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t feel comfortable talking with this editor and instead of replying to him I am going to be reporting all future harassment from him directly here.--8bitJake (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... so if I ask you a question, for instance, you're going to report me for asking it, instead of replying? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Even after I’ve made it crystal clear that I consider him to be harassing me he keeps leaving messages on my talk page. What’s next? Is he going to start to call my house? [8] This guy is creepy. --8bitJake (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The heck? You know what... screw this. If you're going to persistantly bring up charges against me, and not back them up, then to hell with this. I'm not going to feed the trolls. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing that would cause me to raise an eyebrow at any contributions that Nwwaew has made in the last day. You, however, 8bitJake, are not assuming good faith, and are once again verging on breaking WP:POINT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And I have warned 8bitJake to this end with a Level 3 on AGF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake

Given that 8bitJake is already on probation, I propose that we broaden the topic ban to include the American political system. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity he deleted huge chunks of other people's comments (including mine) and has been peppering several sections with his whining about Nwwaew - same thing I believe you already reverted. Fletcher (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a flawed decision from years ago since it included false accusations. --8bitJake (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the ANI started Nwwaew has continued to make disparaging insults directed at me [9]--8bitJake (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

‎8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week for Disruptive editing: 3RR not AGF, persistent vilification of editors that have a disagreement, etc. Can we please discuss broadening the ban? I think this is important as the editor clearly isn't taking responsibilty for previous mistakes and decisions. The editor has now been blocked 6 times for very similar behaviour. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will a topic ban help, since he's been blocked six times for the same type of misbehavior? At this point, I think we should be asking if we still want him here. If we do, then I think he should placed on 1RR, since he's been blocked several times for violating 3RR, and had other content disputes that he wasn't blocked for. Additionally, due to the situation that's happened, perhaps a ban on attacking editors, to be enforced by blocking would be appropriate? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I am one of the subjects of this dispute, and may be biased here)

MartinPhi restricted

See: User talk:Vassyana#A user you have dealt with previously. Martinphi (talk · contribs) has shown himself unable to disengage from ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) of his own accord. For glaring example of the problem, see User_talk:Vassyana/Archive009#SA and User_talk:Vassyana/Archive009#Again. It's obvious, that intentionally or not, Martin treats reports about SA as his chance to get one up in "the war". As such, Martinphi is prohibited from injecting himself into reports and conversations about ScienceApologist unless it directly relates to actions taken towards or against him, or directly relates to articles in which they are both currently involved. To prohibit circumvention of this restriction, his is further prohibited from newly inserting himself into content and policy discussions where ScienceApologist is previously involved. If Martin has not participated in several weeks or some months in a topic, rejoining the discussion to counter SA will be considered "newly inserting himself". Enough is enough already. Vassyana (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The restriction is logged on the ArbCom case page,[10] and Martinphi has been informed.[11] Vassyana (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi posted a response on my talk page,[12] to which I responded.[13] Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin, but I hardly think that you're objectively or accurately describing either the effect of this ban on you, or ScienceApologist's effect on the encyclopedia. Reports of Wikipedia's demise are greatly exaggerated. Also, I think someone who specifically admitted [14] that he was editing WP:CIVIL a while ago in order to add a list of "actionable" words that you took from ScienceApologist and other people you didn't like,(Foor full details, see: Wikipedia:RFAR#Request_to_amend_prior_case_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist I think you're on damn shaky ground. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My comments on Vassyana's talk page on why it is actually an effective topic ban:

• [Reply to Martinphi] "Not currently involved". Your restriction doesn't come into play yet. The problematic scenario would be if you made no edits to the articles in your watchlist for several weeks or months, and then ScienceApologist makes edits you feel strongly against. Then you're not allowed to edit it, because you'd be "injecting" yourself. Or if you took a wikibreak for any considerable length of time. That's when it'd suck for you and you could consider yourself effectively topic-banned.

• [Comment to Martinphi] Or rather, as worded, you can edit content without restriction, but you can't participate in discussing the content.

The restriction (as worded) is essentially a "gag" order telling Martinphi he's not allowed to talk anywhere ScienceApologist decides to talk, provided Martinphi hasn't talked there in awhile. In other words, if ScienceApologist simply waits a few weeks after Martinphi comments, Martinphi is no longer allowed to talk there until ScienceApologist decides not to talk for a period of time, after which Martinphi is allowed to talk about anything but what ScienceApologist was talking about. Considering this is supposed to apply to policy discussions as well, might as well ban Martinphi because that's what this restriction does for anyplace SA decides to make a remark.

• [Proposed loophole close] Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it might be helpful to clarify the possible reasons for the restrictions placed recently on MartinPhi and to clearly delineate past behavior from present behavior. Although, I can understand the level of frustration bred by this situation, at this point only clear delineation can provide solutions for right now, today.

• My understanding was that this restriction came about as a result of this. [15]. Since Martin vehemently denies that this was directed at Science Apologist, and if Martin is anything he’s honest even to his own detriment, and since on reading the diff I also can see no reason to feel that this was directed at SA, consideration might be given to having neutral admins. look at the diff, and adding their comments/ judgments to those of Vassyana.

• If the restriction is for ongoing disruption I would like to suggest that in my recent experience on the Remote Viewing article, for example, Martin has handled the situation over there with calm and civility. I have no desire to comment on any other editor on that article but it may worth looking at the exchange between editors. [16]. I am not sure that a restriction should be placed on an editor for past violations assuming there are any, and if that is the case, when there are no present violations.

• If restrictions are to be placed on Martin for past behavior and violations I would suggest that such restriction be evenly meted out to SA. Removing Martin from discussions he and SA are jointly editing, or trying to edit, will adversely affect the balance of many of the articles, since these editors often represent the opposite ends of the neutral scale. This dance has been ongoing for a long time, and it most certainly takes two to Tango.

• If restrictions are truly placed to prevent further confrontational situations, then both parties should be restricted; otherwise, another set of equally difficult problems will be created.

• Its difficult to see how Martin at this point in time has come to be restricted, with utmost respect for Vassyana's decision, unless past and present have become tangled and mixed together with an added cupful of high levels of frustration all around from everyone involved. I believe it would be worthwhile and fair to the editor involved to clearly untangle and to further assess the situation.(olive (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

The admin is obviously uninformed about the situation. SA is a point-of-view editor dedicated to correcting any article that he, in his infinite wisdom, deems to be fringe or contrary to his views of what mainstream science accepts. That means that he will likely show up on any article that proposes new theories and certainly any paranormal article. I see that there is a steady flow of requests for his heavy hand in articles by other editors, so he is being used as a thug, as well. His edits are hardly ever content, but focus on tone or whatever is necessary to assure that the reader goes away understanding without a doubt that the subject is impossible and therefore cannot be.

Martian, on the other hand, attempts to provide content, but as I see it, he finds himself too often trying to mediate SA's radical edits. We are here now because he is one of the few who will stand up to SA. If there were as many of him as there are of those SA adherents, you would have a much more balanced Wikipedia. It is almost impossible for anyone interested in paranormal articles to avoid SA, and for a moderate editor to simply stop editing in those articles is to give control of POV to SA and his friends.

Is that what you intend?

If you want to separate the two, then I suggest that you give SA the fringe mainstream science articles and ban him from paranormal and human potential articles. In turn, ban Martin from the mainstream fringe articles and let him remain in the paranormal and human potential ones. Tom Butler (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinPhi is under arbcom restrictions for POV-pushing:

“ 1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. ”

The arbcom also found that:

“ 2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([17]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([18], [19]), threatening disruption of the project ([20]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([21], [22]).

Passed 5 to 0, 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

”

ScienceApologist, meanwhile, is only under civility parole. Frankly, it's about time MartinPhi's arbcom sanctions were actually enforced. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that rationale is that according to the ArbCom, Martinphi can be restricted from a page or set of pages where he's being disruptive. It's not fully established here that he was being disruptive at all. What's more, this new restriction restricts him from every policy page, content page, or discussion where ScienceApologist decides to post a comment first (whether Martinphi is being disruptive or not). ScienceApologist is a prolific editor and edits many policy pages. Martinphi would be essentially restricted from even talking about the core of Wikipedia. That's a little overboard, for such a flimsy case of "disruption". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What did I do what I did? I thought the first three full sentences of my first post to this section made that fairly clear, including linking to a fairly recent and more egregious example of Martinphi's tendencies. It may not be intentional, but it doesn't really matter. It's problematic and disruptive, only serving to reinforce the battleground environment of the topic area and continue to rub old wounds.

Enough of the invalid arguments already! Has SA been injecting himself in the same manner in matters about Martinphi? If so, provide some direct evidence. Has SA been recently continuing long-standing patterns of problem behavior? If so, provide some direct evidence.

Nealparr made a perfectly reasonable suggestion on my talk page.[23] MastCell also made a perfectly reasonable suggestion/observation.[24] MastCell also hit the head on the nail about why both sides can be mind-numbingly frustrating to deal with in this area.[25] Vassyana (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're taking that suggestion, viz "Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing." ?

And just a comment that Nealparr provided a diff showing SA poisoning the well against me just recently [26]. Why are you still asking for evidence? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell is quite right [27], but I do not see what could be done about it, except one of us is banned or withdraws. If anyone will tell me how to act as a completely exemplary editor when SA is above all wiki rules (without withdrawing completely from my favorite topics), why, I'll do it. Vassyana has had a lot of criticism of me, but never addressed the basic question:

ScienceApologist is above Wikipedia rules. Martinphi is not above Wikipedia rules. Just as civil society breaks down when the police enforce the law for one part of the population but not another, so has this wiki broken down.

No one denies that this is the problem. The problem is not with either SA or myself. He is what he is, and I am what I am. If you were to deal with both of us in the same way per our actions, there would be no problem. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be very blunt Martin, melodrama is not going to help your case. The bold text above is exactly the kind of thing that drives people up the wall about this subject area (as MastCell observed). I imposed a restriction based on a long-standing pattern that I have witnessed. I'm quite willing to be fair, but I can only act upon what I know. I keep asking for evidence about ScienceApologist and it is not forthcoming. I'm sorry but a single diff does not establish a pattern (and regardless, the one provided is anything but convincing in and of itself). Show me a pattern (without digging back several months or more). It's not enough to simply say say it is so. Pretend I'm completely clueless about recent actions and that I've seen no diffs from SA for the past three months. Show me clear evidence of a problem. Vassyana (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, you say, "I imposed a restriction based on a long-standing pattern that I have witnessed." You then ask for diffs and evidence from MartinPhi for what he is saying. Above, I see you have provided a variety of links to support your imposing of a restriction on MartinPhi. Do you think you could gather all your evidence on one page, with diffs, as a courtesy to MartinPhi, to provide the same standard of evidence that you are asking him to provide? It is difficult for others to judge this, looking in from the outside, when discussion is spread out and standards of evidence varies. The onus is on you as well as MartinPhi, to present the evidence in as conclusive a way as possible. You also ask MartinPhi to provide evidence "without digging back several months or more" - are you holding yourself to those same standards as well? Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly fair, though I believe the egregious example I provided in the initial post is a sterling example of the problem. To be honest, a similarly acute incident and just a couple of further actions showing a pattern would suffice for my demands for evidence. Regardless, I will take a little time to collect everything together, ta? Vassyana (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have NO idea what is going on here. You just balled me out for merely defining the situation. Now you ask me to present evidence against SA. What does that have to do with my situation? Are you going to let me off because of what he does?

The evidence is too massive to gather quickly, as it involves attacks, setting himself above wiki rules, disruption, edit warring, and other stuff.

You're still assuming bad faith. In my mind, the diff you see as so bad had nothing to do with SA at all. I told you this. So I don't see that you have an open mind. I see extreme bias against me. You might tell me it isn't so, but at this point I can't believe you- sorry. If you want me to believe you have good faith toward me, then say you believe that in my mind, I was merely helping Ludwig, and that I had no intention of doing anything at all relative to ScienceApologist.

Till I have some reason to think there is good faith and even a small sliver of chance that anything I say or any evidence I present will be heard or considered without more than 90% bias against me, there isn't anything I can do here. I can work with the 90% bias, always have.

As far as I can tell, if I presented evidence against SA you'd turn around and block me for harassing him. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you didn't intend for it to be about ScienceApologist. However, I do not believe it "had nothing to do with SA at all". Intentionally or not, it is obvious you are having some difficulty refraining from interjecting in discussions about ScienceApologist. You best said it yourself: "Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles." [emphasis added] Good faith does not equal good action (the road to hell and all that). Regardless, please look at Neal's "fix" below and let me know if that would be acceptable to you. Vassyana (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From Vassyana's talk page

I really wish that Martinphi would stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist. One could easily read that diff (in context) as telling another user how better to nail ScienceApologist in the future. With effort, of course, one could convince oneself that this is simply friendly advice. But given the timing and location of that advice, it seems poorly advised. I'm not posting this on ArbCom Enforcement because I don't think this needs enforcement. I'm not posting it to Martinphi because he clearly knows what he's doing. I'm posting this here for you because I think you're neutral enough to tell me to stop whining. Thanks, Antelan^talk 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Antelan- always following me around and saying I do things wrong. Trying to get me banned. Surely you know it was general advice, as no one can block SA. Getting him is not an option. Even if it were, Ludwig is a newish user, and he's been a help recently. I give him the advice on how to get things done which I had to learn myself. I feel quite right about helping to make impossible the see/hear/say no evil attitude of the admins who don't have cojones to do anything about anything even when it's within their domain- I mean, even when the issue is not one of content and they have a clear mandate. If that means spelling it out for them so they can't pretend blindness, that's what one has to do.

Please note that if I'd been trying to get SA, I'd have informed Ludwig about SA's ArbCom restriction, which he doesn't seem to know about.

Perhaps you put this here because you know Vassayana thinks I'm out to get SA. That of course is the wrong way of putting it because I just want SA to stop hassling me so I can get to more real editing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Martin, you are prohibited from injecting yourself into reports and conversations about ScienceApologist unless it directly relates to actions taken towards or against you, or directly relates to articles in which you are both currently involved. To prohibit circumvention of this restriction, you are further prohibited from newly inserting yourself into content discussions where ScienceApologist is previously involved. If you have not participated in several weeks or some months in a topic, rejoining the discussion to counter SA will be considered "newly inserting yourself".

Your snotty and demeaning message linked above is bad enough, but worse yet, in this instance ScienceApologist was trying very hard to be civil and politely discuss the issue and OrangeMarlin was not even remotely uncivil in the linked sections. Certainly, SA and OM have had issues with civility, but this opportunistic tar-slinging is intolerable, as it treats Wikipedia like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could. Vassyana (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what was snotty, demeaning, or tar slinging about the diff in question [28]? Clearly Martinphi was talking to Ludwigs2, and telling him how to provide better diffs. That's the complete extent of the comment. Martinphi is restricted from disruptive editing. The linked comment was constructive advice, to a newer editor. The part about people having the attention span of fleas is general commentary on why diffs should contain the important stuff. It's not directed at anyone in particular and certainly isn't an attack on ScienceApologist. As for Martinphi butting in on a conversation unrelated to himself, all three (Ludwigs2, Martinphi, and ScienceApologist) edit remote viewing together, which was recently locked because ScienceApologist jumped in.

To the point (this is the reason I bothered commenting here at all), it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. The restriction imposed by Vassyana makes it seem like SA needs protection from Martinphi or something. People in glass houses don't need protection when they throw stones randomly, everywhere, even so much that they have to put a disclaimer at the very top of their talk page saying they intend to continue doing so and require one explain in personal detail why the stone thrown at them hurts before they'll take it seriously. If no complaint of incivility on SA's part is ever taken seriously, then seriously no perceived incivility against SA should ever be taken seriously. If one expects everyone else to have a thick skin, they in turn should be required to have one themselves.

Both ScienceApologist and Martinphi have no moral high-road to complain about each other, and admins would have to cherry pick diffs to impose sanctions against one and not the other. The above "attack against ScienceApologist" -- which is really constructive advice to a newish editor on how to deal with disputes more effectively -- is completely overshadowed by the recent overt "poisoning the well" attack on Martinphi diffed here [29]. Frankly, either both should be directed to not interact with each other at all, or perceived slights towards one another on both their parts should be ignored entirely as them trying to game the system against each other. Anything less is picking favorites despite the fact that there's no moral high ground justification in picking one over the other. Both would equally like to see the other banned, I'm sure.

Antelan may have in good faith posted this request, but come on, it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. If he doesn't have a thick skin, he really shouldn't be here "to combat pseudoscience" (his words). At the very least, a weakly figured "attack" on him shouldn't result in restrictions when strong overt attacks are made by him all the time. Goose and gander and all that. The rationale for the restriction was "treat[ing] Wikipedia like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could." It is ScienceApologist we're talking about. He says all the time that Wikipedia is a battleground and makes off-hand insults repeatedly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough of these tu quoque arguments. I'm tired of this fallacious crap from both sides. This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone. This is not the first time he's done this, nor the most egregious, but it simply needs to stop. Martinphi apparently cannot disengage, so I'm making a formal restriction for him to disengage. Vassyana (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: It baffles me how someone can fail to understand the problem with Martin's comment about attention spans and the openly encourage essentially cherrypicking "the worst" from the diffs (which tends to ignore context, etc). Also, the one link you provide about "poisoning the well" appears to be some kind of response (edit summary "r") and doesn't seem to even come close to crossing any lines. The problem was not that Martin was making personal attacks, but rather that he constantly sticks his nose in reports about SA, regardless of its appropriateness. It's disruptive and needs to end. Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, you or Antelan can make it out to be that Martinphi is the sole problem all you guys want. That's your perogative. But Martinphi commenting in a noticeboard post about ScienceApologist being disruptive isn't the reason ScienceApologist repetitively shows up in these noticeboards. Whether editors are right or wrong at a given moment in their beefs with SA, it's obvious that ScienceApologist earns being in the noticeboard all on his own, independently of what Martinphi does. Martinphi doesn't post all those notices, all those dozens of notices.

I've been watching the interaction between the two for almost two years now. They are both at each other's throats. The difference is that Martinphi is always seen to be the bad guy. ScienceApologist always skates by. They both do the exact same thing to each other.

Regarding the "r" diff, it's not a reply. Check both ScienceApologist's talk page (no conversation between Hrafn and him remotely around that date) and the article's talk page (no conversation between the two at all). It's not a reply. It's a "helpful hint" about how to effectively deal with Martinphi in an unrelated content dispute. Regarding Martinphi's comment, why not get some outside opinion on whether it's disruptive before assuming it is? Saying that Martinphi is instructing someone to not present the context of the dispute is, in my opinion, stretching the issue quite far. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've whacked people on both sides of this dispute with cluesticks and I've received enough harassment to last a lifetime just from the blatantly obvious cases. I don't need a lecture about evenhandedness. Show me some solid evidence about SA if you wish to continue harping on him or I'm quite done responding. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that got ugly real quick. Sorry I commented at all. PS Asking you to consider outside opinion isn't harrassment. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My tolerance is admittedly low today. However, I would have usually found the tu quoque arguments and the like far less irritating, though still problematic. Regardless, you are earnestly welcome to provide some solid evidence of recent problems. I will pay attention to it. I will review it. I will act directly on it as seems necessary and/or bring up a potential solution for discussion and review. I don't pretend to be aware of everything that happens and if something substantive is brought to my attention, I will attempt to do the right thing. It's just that I'm not interested in hearing the same complaints and logical fallacies, over and over from people on sides. Bring me something with some meat, preferably with a minimum of commentary, and I'll sink my teeth into it. Vassyana (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I sincerely did not mean to imply that you were harassing me at all. It was more a statement that I've been fair in this area and I've "paid my dues" for it, thus I don't need to be told about being fair. It was a statement of frustration, noting some offense taken, and I should have been more careful in my phrasing and presentation. On the point of outside opinion, I did post a note to AN/I, expecting other sysops and the community to review the decision. Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Understandable that your tolerance level is low. Respectably, no, I'm not going to post a bunch of diffs against SA to demonstrate something with some meat on it. It's sort of my point that there's no meat on any of it. SA takes digs at Martinphi. Martinphi takes digs at SA. Both are contentious editors. I don't think it's right to give SA the upper hand by restricting Martinphi from any article SA gets to first. More to the point, I don't think that's a real solution to the problem. Restricting each other from each other probably won't help either. All that will do is create a "gold rush" to claim articles.

The only real solution is to ignore any request to intercede on either's behalf. This thread was started with Antelan asking you to help make Martinphi "stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist". Why? ScienceApologist does the same to Martinphi. Both have been at each other for a long time. There's no meat to any of these requests, and like I said, it's not like SA is squeaky clean on the matter. So why do anything for him at all? It doesn't take me posting a bunch of diffs to establish that he doesn't need support. One thing I will take the time to do is post the list of articles that have been locked down in recent months after SA decided to "participate". I have four that I remember off-hand, parapsychology, electronic voice phenomena, what the bleep do we know, and remote viewing. I know there are others, but I can't remember them all. In each of those articles, SA comes in and makes changes he knows are going to piss people off, edit wars with them for a bit, and boom: article locked down. It happens all the time. Should he be restricted? I don't personally think so. Really, I don't care. My point is this: He deserves exactly what he gives... that is, he deserves to be treated with the same "I don't care" attitude he gives to everyone else. In other words, if ScienceApologist goes around saying things and making edits without caring what people think, why should he get any community support in turn? Why should you care if Martinphi did pick on him? Requests to intercede on his behalf (like this one) should be completely ignored.

That's my point ^ Ignore any complaints about Martinphi in relation to ScienceApologist and any complaints about ScienceApologist in relation to Martinphi. All complaints are meatless and attempts to get the other blocked, banned, restricted, or otherwise gamed out of the system. My (unsolicited) advice is to simply don't buy into it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Background: I have copyedited Remote Viewing and so keep an eye on the article despite my lack of knowledge in the area, I came into the discussion yesterday to possibly shift direction when balance in the discussion was deteriorating. I also did not view MartinPhi’s comments to Ludwig as in anyway insulting to or referring to Science Apologist. Antelan’s comments initially made no sense to me, although I can now understand how he might have arrived at the understanding he did. I am aware that Ludwig is a new editor as one can see on the discussion on remote viewing and that MartinPhi is coaching him somewhat.

• You are an admin I respect. Out of respect rather than disrespect I make the next comment to you in a straightforward way. Is there a possibility that your recent judgenent is based less on the diff Antelan presented rather than on an accumulated level of frustration one might rightly feel in this situation.
• Might it be appropriate to ask two or three completely uninvolved admins who know neither SA nor Martin to view the diff. with the background information that one editor had been coaching another as obvious and so provide a judgment that cannot be attributed to the frustration those of us aware of this situation feel.

NOTE: As I post this, I see you have asked for outside assistance

• If a ban is placed on one editor for other reasons than this diff., and I have to say watching remote viewing, I thought Martin was handling himself pretty well, then that restriction be placed on both editors. Not to do so leaves an open-ended situation, and tips the balance in any discussion both editors are involved in. At least with both editors on equal footing, some balance can be maintained. Until Antaean ‘s comments SA and Martin were handling business as usual.
• Where I not feeling well today my better judgment might have kept me off your user page. As it is, I am commenting and hope you can take the comments with the respect and understanding I have written them with.

Am I supporting Martin in this case? Absolutely, yes. Do I edit at his request and ignore my own judgment and the level of integrity I strive to maintain? Absolutely, no.

I don’t require any kind of reply … Just adding comments for your consideration.(olive (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Just wanted you to know that I have read your message and I am earnestly considering it. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There has probably never been a more clear-cut case of two users who should disengage, or at least not seek out opportunities to insert themselves into disputes with each other. Admittedly, they share some topics of interest, and if their paths cross on such articles then so be it. But Vassyana is absolutely right; while I didn't find Martin's message overly condescending, the fact that he's inserting himself into the dispute is the issue. Look at the facts:

• The dispute was on alternative medicine, an article which Martinphi has never edited. It is reasonable to believe that his interest was solely based on ScienceApologist's involvement.
• The user filing the alert considered it resolved, after which Martin interjected with the predictable effect of reopening and prolonging a resolved dispute

OK, I understand Martin feels picked on. This time it was him; ScienceApologist has, I believe, done similar things in the past. It's very simple: they should both avoid one another except as pertains to specific issues on articles which they both edit. Neither one should go out of his way to inject themselves into a dispute involving the other, or to give helpful "advice" to other parties on how to deal with their opposite number. That's really not too much to ask; it's reasonable to make it a two-way street, but otherwise Vassyana is completely on target. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider this crap from SA's page:

"I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER."

And, how SA has made an effort to circumvent the civility rules on the top of his talk page. Consider that SA gang edits with his supporters, such as the ever present OrageMarlin, Fyslee and Antelan. Consider that SA has diligently worked to eliminate editors with views he does not agree with. Then take a look at his block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless.

To not edit in articles SA is involved with is to simply give Wikipedia to him. Trust me, Wikipedia is already sliding on the scale of respectability in the world--especially in the academic world. You do not want it to be identified as a skeptical platform to protect the status quo from new ideas.

Martin is about the last editor opposing SA's SPOV editing. I for one have given up and am taking the argument to the public. Where do you suppose the other banned or driven off editors have gone? Tom Butler (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Tom, don't you realize that what you call "this crap from SA's page" is basically a rewording of the highest form of Wiki wisdom? You can read more about it here:

• Rouge admins

That you consider this to be "crap" is understandable, considering you promote OR of the worst kind and consider it your mission to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting your OR odd notions. It is therefore natural you would oppose anyone who tries to apply Wikipedia's NOR and FRINGE policies, which apply to your editing and subject matter. You just don't have a clue about what Wikipedia is about. NPOV must be an obnoxious stumbling block to you, since you obviously fail to understand it. Your latest suggestion reveals you are truly clueless about the need for articles to be edited by editors who hold opposing POV: "If you want to separate the two, then I suggest that you give SA the fringe mainstream science articles and ban him from paranormal and human potential articles. In turn, ban Martin from the mainstream fringe articles and let him remain in the paranormal and human potential ones." You are again proposing that articles be written in a totally non-NPOV manner. You just hate that any criticism of your fringe ideas appears in the articles, even though NPOV requires it. Someone needs to give you a cluestick. BTW, taking your arguments to the public, if it involves discussing and criticizing Wikipedia editors, is a bannable offense. Make up your mind - either you edit here according to the policies here, or you take your OR and "new" ideas to the public and leave Wikipedia alone. IOW don't edit here at all. BTW, I don't know why you mentioned me above as I haven't been involved with you or your articles very much at all, and not for a long time. -- Fyslee / talk 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"take a look at ScienceApologist's block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless"?!? No one is claiming he's faultless. I explicitly said otherwise. There may not be a good guy and a bad guy here, hard as that may be for a partisan to accept. There are just two editors who feed off of each other in a negative, disruptive fashion. Your comment, and the strawman embodied in it ("If you're not with Martinphi, you must be making excuses for ScienceApologist") is exactly why people are tired and frustrated with both sides here. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What in the world are people talking about? I was helping Ludwig, and nothing I said related to SA. I looked in, I saw that he obviously hadn't presented things right, and I helped him. Had nothing to do with SA, except the complaint itself.

What, I repeat, are you talking about Vassayana? It had to do with admins not reading diffs, not SA.

Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles.

If you have even a single reason to think I was slinging tar at SA, then please bring it forth. As it happens, I was merely talking to Ludwig, saying how to do things. Since I consider him a friend, that accounts for my being there, not getting SA in trouble.

Vassayana, be reasonable: if I'd been wanting to get SA in trouble or sling tar at him, here's what I would have done: I'd have emailed Ludwig, told him about SA's ArbCom restriction, and collaborated with him to get SA at Arb enforcement. Duh. Just how dumb do you think I am? If I'm going to try and get SA, I'll do it properly. And I would be far too smart to sling mud at him in the meantime, because I already knew how that is perceived.

In short, this is a completely egregious lack of AGF on your part. I ask that you remove this restriction, and also remove it from the Arbitration page. You have absolutely nothing to go on, unless you think I'm a complete idiot.

Now, perhaps I am an idiot, but if I am it is to think that there is indeed an assumption of good faith on this wiki. I assumed that I could make an innocent comment, or actually a snarky comment about the attention span of admins in general, without it being construed as my trying to get SA.

Again, look at the situation there: there was no chance of getting SA. I'd known about that thread for a long time: do you think I don't watch that page? I can send you my watchlist. Do you think I would not have inserted myself earlier if I'd wanted to get SA? Do you think that I believed there was the least chance of getting SA? Get a little good faith. I was there for a brief comment to Ludwig, and nothing more.

I was restricted from an article once for doing exactly what SA did in this diff of Nealparr's [30]. In that case, SA complained, in exactly those words, that I'd poisoned the well. But you can't see it. You won't do a thing to SA.

But anyway, I avoid SA as much as I can, and that includes trying not to go to articles where he is. Show me one place where I followed him (if you look hard there might be one or two articles), and I'll show you people begging me to help (literally).

Of course, because of this, it is a completely easy restriction to follow, but it is also completely unfair, and I think it only shows your frustration with this situation. Frankly, I think you know that I'm not anything like SA, yet you want the situation to stop. Well, you can make it stop easily, by just banning everyone who disagrees with SA. But is that what needs doing? You gave SA an indef block, so you know what the reality is basically. Do you really think that SA needs to be protected against me...... even assuming you still insist that what I said at WQ had anything to do with SA?

I ask that you get this reviewed. Get other completely uninvolved admins to review that diff, and see if it is really me wanting to "get" SA. See if they really think it believable that it was my belief that such a thing could do SA the least bit of harm. Vassayana, the more I think about it the more I see that even if you consider me to have no good faith at all, and therefore that my little comment was trying to get SA, you also have to think I'm completely STUPID. Let me assure you, I know how people perceive our interaction, and I wouldn't be that dumb if I were trying to get him. Which is why I almost always avoid these discussions on him at AN/I and Arb enforcement. Which is why I avoided that one till it was already closed. I haven't even emailed Ludwig. Go ask him. But he could have made a good Arb enforcement request if I had asked him.

Please ask reviewing admins to read what I just said here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If you had not repeatedly and inappropriately injected yourself into complaints and reports about SA, I would be willing to assume a whole lot more good faith. To be blunt, one assumes good faith as a starting point and it goes away in the face of contrary evidence. It's not a matter of one diff, but just another blip in a long-standing pattern of interaction. I did not block you. I did not even topic ban you. I did not even completely prohibit from you dealing with ScienceApologist. I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. If that restriction is truly that much of an issue to you, its necessity becomes even more clear to me.

I clearly posted a link to AN/I where I notified everyone of what I did. I will link to your message here, but you're free to comment on AN/I, like anyone else. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am banned

If that's what you did, it's completely unfair. I completely object to it's being on my record, because I have done nothing wrong.

But that's not what you did. Rather, you handed all the paranormal articles to SA. What you did was say to him: you have complete freedom to edit without Martinphi being involved anywhere Martinphi hasn't been for a while. Remember, we edit very low traffic articles. You just handed most all the paranormal articles to him. Completely, as I am the only one who bothers about his POV pushing on most of them. He can completely remake the paranormal articles because of this. You think he won't notice? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you just banned me from Parapsychology and a number of other articles, now that I think about it. Yes, you did ban me, on most of the article where I edit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you show obvious bias by shrugging off Nealparr's diff. I think you are completely biased against me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Not currently involved". Your restriction doesn't come into play yet. The problematic scenario would be if you made no edits to the articles in your watchlist for several weeks or months, and then ScienceApologist makes edits you feel strongly against. Then you're not allowed to edit it, because you'd be "injecting" yourself. Or if you took a wikibreak for any considerable length of time. That's when it'd suck for you and you could consider yourself effectively topic-banned. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you mean like nearly everything on my watchlist, including EVP and Parapsychology (I edited there today before I realized the implications of this, but before that I hadn't edited since 19 May. And on EVP since 7 May) and most everything else? No, this is a topic ban from nearly everything. SA has the wiki to himself now.

If this is not changed, I will leave WP. I will ask to be blocked indef so as not to be tempted. This is completely egregious. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, as worded, you can edit content without restriction, but you can't participate in discussing the content.

Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting where I perhaps "do not belong", but I find this situation puzzling and disturbing. People should not be discouraged from offering advice to new people -- or to experienced people. Now, I'm not sure I entirely understand the restrictions on Martin, and I don't have any real experience with Martin, but I've had some experience with ScienceApologist and find him to be tendentious and disruptive, and fairly given towards edit warring. For example, he recently tried to add unreferenced trivia to the lead of water fluoridation opposition; when I reverted it, he reverted me (diff), and I let it stay because I know he won't stop. He seems to constantly try to push people's buttons. I'm sure Martin and ScienceApologist can go round and round "discussing" and getting nowhere, but when push comes to shove and ScienceApologist tries to edit in things which don't belong, or unbalance articles, then it is good to have a balancing opinion. It appears here that there is a bias against Martin in favor of ScienceApologist; hopefully I'm just misreading. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to move this away from this talk page, as Vassayana tried to blank it. If there are no objections within a reasonable time, I'll move it to AN/I. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vassayana attempts to "blank" their own talk page...Why Martin, how dare they do that! The ignomy of it all. Shot info (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem polite to me to in a way decree that "discussion on this is over" -- I was surprised. Clearly there is some interest in discussing this. If Vassayana is uncomfortable with the discussion cluttering up her talk page, then it should be moved to AN/I, sure. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple fix

The discussion surrounding Martinphi's restriction is getting a little overboard (eg. "I am banned"). This is probably because the restriction itself is a little overboard (eg. He is essentially banned depending on where ScienceApologist chooses to comment). The restriction is disproportionate to the problem: in a nutshell, Martinphi and ScienceApologist simply do not get along but otherwise can contribute to the project in a productive manner. Vassyana considered my "simple fix" suggestion, so let me elaborate here.

1) Martinphi should not enter into discussions solely to fight against ScienceApologist, or vice versa. That was the intent of the restriction in the first place. I think that's a given considering how much they don't like each other, and since any comment they make against each other is just white noise at this point (it's all been argued before). "Poisoning the well" against each other is also inappropriate at this point, considering the circumstances, and neither should do that. Both editors should refrain from posting messages to other editors that make oblique references to the other or their past history. Call it a "restraining order". This is especially relevant in various noticeboards where one of the editors is not directly involved, and in policy discussions where "poisoning the well" could effect other editor's decisions regarding policy decisions when the policy changes should be evaluated on its own merits rather than past histories of the editor posting the content.

The simple fix here is to not restrict the editors from conversations, but restrain them from "poisoning the well".

2) Martinphi should not make a comment that references ScienceApologist himself, and vice versa. This is a back to basics proposal. We're here to discuss content, not editors. If the above proposal were to apply to noticeboards and policy discussions, this one would be about content. The core of WP:CIVIL concerns addressing content, not editors, and while ScienceApologist is frequently accused of being uncivil, I think Martinphi has forgotten this core principle as well as he frequently makes comments about ScienceApologist himself rather than what he feels is wrong with ScienceApologist's edits. Back to basics. Talk about content, not editors. If the restrictions are meant to get them to stop fighting with each other, we really need to get their coversations off each other and on point.

The simple fix here is to not restrict editors from content discussions they are involved in, or potentially will be involved in, but rather restrict them from talking about each other. You can put the hammer down on this one and word it in no uncertain terms, the strictest possible way, because they shouldn't be talking about each other at all. On the other hand, they shouldn't feel disenfranchised from content related discussions either.

3) Martinphi should broaden his Wikipedia contributions, voluntarily, as a show of good faith. Part of the reason editors have a problem with Martinphi is that they feel he's only here to fight with editors on fringe topics, ie. WP:TE. As a show of good faith, he should voluntarily get involved in a wider spectrum of topics that need improvement. This probably shouldn't be a "restriction", but rather some good advice that he should voluntarily embrace. Like many editors (myself included), he's probably just a wiki-junky on topics he's into. But I'm sure he has other interests that he could spend some time on, and that would go a long way towards assuaging people that he's not here just to quarrel. Nearly everyone on the planet has a culture, religion, geography, history, sociology, etc. topic they can improve. Alterntatively, if Martinphi wanted to continue in his chosen area, paranormal topics, he can help out on folklore, culture views, beliefs, and so on, rather than making edits primarily centered around the fringe science aspects of paranormal topics.

The simple fix here is to change the environment where Martinphi and ScienceApologist would bump heads.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all good. Problem with my branching out is 1. I have only time to fix paranormal articles: they get attacked so much by .......editors...... that all my time is taken up with that. Second problem is I really don't have time for WP and want to leave. Just like, you, if I could really contribute and edit, it would be fine, but I can't so I'm restricted to what I do. But my expertise in keeping POV out of fringe articles causes other editors to keep dragging me back in, even to articles where I have no interest.

If you want to see what I do when left well alone, go see the Astral projection article as I left it a few months ago.

I've tried to branch out, for instance to the Chiropractic and Fetus articles, but in that case JzG came along when other editors were editing a draft in my userspace, and unilaterally deleted the page saying I was a POV editor, even though I wasn't editing the page myself.

I was just getting out of Wikipedia before the last ArbCom against me, and at that time ScienceApologist came back from wikibreak and started in on fringe articles, and then started that ArbCom. I'd be long gone otherwise.

I'm here not because I want to be, but because I'm needed so bad and because I don't want to give up on articles I care about. Otherwise I might do a bit of editing once in a while, put in some content.

I stopped giving content long ago, because of the attacks.

I don't actually feel my expertise is needed anywhere but the paranormal or fringe. Otherwise, I have a life that needs attending to, and there are lots of people who can do that work. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments?

Holy crap Heh, none of this was here yesterday, and I thought it was resolved. Anyway, I just want to comment on this, which olive said was the reason for the restriction. I actually did not feel the "fleas" characterization was directed at SA, but rather to me (or anyone else who might have responded to the Wikiquette alert). However, it was also clear to me -- even though I had never met Martinphi before -- that his motivation for jumping in was due to past conflicts with SA.

Since his core advice was sound (if you think someone has been uncivil, provide a diff and possibly a quotation), and since I really didn't want an already-resolved issue to flare up for no reason, I chose to ignore the bafflingly unnecessary and insulting comment. However, at the same time I admit I was very relieved when I saw the restriction from Vassyana. I was worried Martinphi was about to make a federal case out of an issue between two other users that had already been reasonably resolved, and this restriction, I felt, gave me the option to revert&ignore any other unhelpful commentary he might add.

So, no comments as to whether the restrictions to Martinphi should apply in article talk space... but, as a previously uninvolved user, I can say that I thought restricting Martinphi from jumping into noticeboard discussions that don't involve him is a damn good idea. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm surprised you took it so seriously. The situation was closed, done with, and since I was wikistalking Ludwig I came in and told him why the thing didn't work. I don't know what evidence he might have come up with. But if there was evidence, the way he presented it was bound to fail to convince. Restricting me for such a good faith edit- funny thing go advocate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I thought it was an attack: 1) The "attention span of fleas" thing seemed to be disparaging those who did not listen to Ludwigs' complaint; 2) if it really was advice I thought Ludwigs' talk page would be a more appropriate venue, where as posting it at WQA seemed to be a subtle way of getting in a dig; 3) when I saw the comment I said to myself, "Who the heck is this guy, and what does he want?", and searched your contribs -- and after a cursory inspection, Occam's razor answered back, "This guy is a sworn enemy of ScienceApologist and he wants to discredit anyone who defends him on any level."

Sometimes, I suppose, the simplest explanation is not the most accurate, so maybe you did mean it in good faith. It's impossible for me to know for sure. If you really did, then I apologize.

In any case, I was still relieved when I saw the restriction, even if you were acting in good faith. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Why now?" has to be established

I want to reiterate in somewhat more concise wording , what I believe has to be established here. Why this restriction now? If it references back to the "flee" quote , then we have to establish if that was an innocent comment. If this judgment is based on ongoing disruption we have to it seems to me at least discern if Martin has been recently disruptive. If his editing practices have improved in the last while, then we are closing the barn door after the horse has left. If we are placing restrictions two editors are involved, and Vassyana's suggestion to find diffs for the other party involved in making inappropriate comments or editing disruptions seems necessary. Although I think Nealls' comment is a wise one, it assumes Martin's guilt, and only includes one editor, if I understand him correctly. If Martin's comments in the last day or so seem emotive perhaps he can be forgiven for that , since he came back to Wikipedia to find a restriction placed on him for something he says he didn't do,and perhaps feels misunderstood. Is it possible that any of us might have been thrown off whatever kind of balance we had achieved in such a situation?(olive (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

I wanted also to make something clear. I am not out to get SA. If a restriction or solution can be found that allows both Martin and SA to edit, while monitoring behaviour so that articles can be written fairly, and no one is hurt well, that's the best, and most positive scenario I can imagine. I do feel that restrictions on only one editor though, in this situation will increase the problems and create imbalance.(olive (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

next step

Vassyana, it now your turn: do you accept nealparr's three italicized fixes above? If you do, perhaps you could modify your restriction statement on the various pages accordingly. if you don't,can you explain why you think it might not be enough--for at first glance it does strike me as a reasonable solution. DGG (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

They seem perfectly reasonable and actually a very good set of recommendations. I would like to wait and see if any other outside admins provide further feedback (though I know it unlikely). However, the comments of MastCell and your support of solution both mean quite a bit to me. I would also like to respond to Carcharoth's quite reasonable request and see if anyone can provide some relatively recent evidence about ScienceApologist, though they're not really necessary for the fairly common sense approach Neal proposes. Also, just for future reference, I openly welcome any uninvolved admins to alter or overturn my actions in general (silly acceptance of human fallibility or something). I will modify the restriction statement accordingly later this evening, if no uninvolved sysops object. Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. Btw, I never meant to imply that you weren't even-handed in your dealings. I've always considered you fair minded. As a Wikipedia editor who spends too much time on wording, I tend to pick words apart and overthink how they're used. It was the wording of the restriction I was questioning, not you or whether something couldn't be done towards the Martinphi-ScienceApologist quarrel. Although I still maintain that ignoring requests to intercede on either's behalf would probably work too, the above is probably more community-building. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As another outsider, I'd say that Nealparr's modifications of the restrictions are entirely reasonable and actionable. The bottom line is that we've two editors that are unwilling to disengage on their own, repeatedly and fatiguingly exothermic in result. I'm reasonably certain a mirrored set may be warranted for SA, pending evidence of recent similarly-fomenting behavior. — Scientizzle 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. It didn't occur to me that what I was commenting on might be taken as a comment on the admin.'s action here. Since I'd already given Vassysan an earful on his page, I was addressing all of us I guess hoping to keep things in perspective as I saw it. I apologize if anything I said seemed to be critical of Vassyana. I actually felt I was dealing with an admin who was open enough to listen or I wouldn't have commented at all.(olive (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

• mildly confused* I did not find your comments out of place or overly critical. As far as I can tell, you went out of your way to indicate your respect for me while disagreeing. I sincerely apologize if I did something to make you feel otherwise. Vassyana (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no.... just wanted to make sure. On line like this, things can be misunderstood.(olive (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Nip this now...more sniping is not the answer.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, is that the evidence you want? Of his targeting me? Fine, here's a start: [31] You are acting as a POV-pusher in the instance you cite, 8 June [32] I've simply been using it to combat your disruptive editing, which, I'll remind you, is under probation. 8 June [33] is in direct violation of our guideline we wrote and is, moreover, disruptive in its continual reinsertion. 8 June [34] I am also of the opinion that your "best" is the perpetration of continued disruption at Wikipedia 8 June [35] I will continue to point out the fact that you continually flout your restrictions until you change your behaviour 8 June [36] as far as I'm concerned Martinphi is disrupting that particular page 9 June [37] Acting as a shill for Martinphi's disruption is unacceptable. 10 June [38] You are consistently flouting your restrictions 10 June [39] You are being disruptive and are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Martinphi restricted|your probation. 10 June Edit summaries [40] Martinphi (talk) rv disruptive editing in violation of arbcomm sanctions 8 June [41] Reverted 1 edit by Martinphi; Removing disruption. 9 June [42] MORE disruption by Martinphi10 June [43] rv disruptive violation of arbcom restrictions 10 June The reason there aren’t more from this period is because SA only made five edits to Wiki in total on 9 June – he did still manage to squeeze in two attacks that day mind you. I asked SA straight out “If you really feel that I'm a disruptive editor to that extent” then “take it right back to ArbCom”. To which SA replied, “I categorically refuse to ‘take it right back to ArbCom’ as […] I can accomplish all that I see to be necessary in other ways” Please note that I don't like reverting. I try not to, but as SA doesn't respect the consensus of other editors, as he says on his userpage, [44] it's sometimes that or abandon the articles. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I stand by each and every one of those edits. Martinphi is a disruptive editor, but I would prefer it if others took him to task for his behavior. I will continue to remind the community that Martinphi is a disruptive editor every time he acts like a disruptive editor. Every single one of those examples shows him being disruptive. I will be civil in this regard. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment about civility probation versus disruptive editing probation

Martin and I are being treated in Neal's proposal as if we are under equivalent probations. We are not. I am on civility probation, he is on disruptive editing probation. My goal through November is to be civil. However, that does not mean I can pretend as though Martinphi is "just another editor". My volunteering at Wikipedia takes the form that I outline at the top of my userpage, and Martin is unfortunately totally opposed to this activity while using almost every chance he can get to disrupt my attempts to improve the encyclopedia in that fashion. As Vassyana pointed out, at some point good faith becomes exhausted. When Martin exhibits disruptive behavior, I have taken to calmly and politely pointing out the disruptive behavior. I wish that Martin would stop being disruptive, but he refuses categorically and seems blind to the issue. In contrast, I have instituted a policy of refactoring perceived incivility to directly address the behavior problems that have been brought to my attention. Martin acts as though he has free license to continue disrupt articles and violate the content guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. He has even said as much even in the discussions in this section. If I notice him acting that way and point it out politely in edit summaries and on talk pages, I am not poisoning the well. However, I am certain given the laundry list Martin has paraded out of instances where I civilly reminded him that he was being disruptive and violating his arbcom restrictions that he will simply claim that any mention of his problematic behavior even when it occurs after the fact is somehow poisoning the well. It isn't. Given our history, I imagine it will be just a matter of time before Martin or another editor who is opposed to my activities here starts complaining about this at WP:AE. Think carefully about what the consequences will be for instituting rules that can easily be gamed.

Secondly, restricting users from "talking about each other at all" is ludicrous. We are all involved in a community and sometimes in a community we have to discuss other people's actions. We have to talk about other people. While WP:NPA is explicit about talking about contributions rather than the contributor, this is clearly not meant to be a gag order on discussing editor behavior when it becomes problematic. Since Martinphi is under disruptive editing probation, it is important that we be able to discuss when he is being disruptive. Since I am on civility probation, it is important that we able to discuss when I'm being uncivil.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

Could someone else step in on this please? WillyJulia (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't like that myself and another editor are enforcing WP:BLP policies on Chris Crocker -- I know, not everyone's cup of tea -- and they seem persistent in speculating who the person is despite being asked not to and now here they are copying my user page which may not be a violation but it is creepy. I have to take a break now but would appreciate uninvolved parties suss it out more civilly than I feel I would. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates WP:BLP. Perhaps I erred but they also filled their user page with multiple copies of a copyrighted picture which has been added and removed multiple times from the article. This perhaps led them to copy my user page onto theirs. Perhaps not a violation but I would like help in how to approach this since I'm now of such interest to them. Any advice appreciated. Banjeboi 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!"[45]. Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread above. Banjeboi 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work. Banjeboi 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a WP:AIV on him, reasoning that he removed comments. It has already been removed by an administrator. Arienh4^(Talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

and the editor continues[46] with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting [47]. The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO [48]. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

that was i was trying to say BIDGEE said This is very complicated. The link in the This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in section may say where his from however it's not being used to state where he may live rather to say that Wikipedia has been mentioned but your using link and trying to state where he lives (or lived) which is against the WPBIO policy. If you have an issue with the link then take it up first to get a consensus. I hope that makes it easer to understand. This is also the last edit I'm going to make since it's 2am in the morning so I will not be replying until sometime later today or tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC) very complicated? you can say that again!--WillyJulia (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. WillyJulia, the article already states he is Tennessee-based and has for some time, this is verifiable. It also states, per the subject's own MySpace site that he is now in Los Angeles. These are in reliable sources by wikipedia's standard. The link on the top of the talk page has nothing in the article that isn't already in the biography we have and, in fact, it refers to us because, I believe, we have the best article on him available. You wanted to include he's from Tennessee? It's already in there. You want to say he was born there or what his identity is? You'll need reliable sources and concensus to include that. I'm very open to reporting those details once we have the sourcing to do so. Banjeboi 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).

This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Wikipedia policy. (So far, I count WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly: Please block this user as an WP:SPA with no contribs that do not relate to exposing the real identity of a WP:BLP, and for being a general PITA in other ways. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now in communication with Bidgee (talk · contribs), so maybe he/she can straighten this person out. Perhaps advocating a block was a little premature -- the user is violating policy and generally creating a ruckus, but I think I was mostly just pissed off that I opened their somewhat-NSFW user page while I was at work. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't copying somebody else's User page a violation of GFDL? Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just issued the user a final warning after his reinsertion of a personal attack against User:Benjiboi on Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). He doesn't look like he's going to be able to play well with others, and I'm not seeing any reason for anything other than an indef block. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped on this. I'm seeing this editor as only pushing to include chat comments as a source to "out" the concealed identity of a BLP, and not in any civil fashion, and then turning on editors, including myself. I hope they can leave that all behind but in the meanwhile just a thanks for helping deal with it all. Banjeboi 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to add a vital piece of information to the article and users are just shouting WP:BLP!! at me i have many reliable sources so there is no reason not to add it!--WillyJulia (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People are shouting WP:BLP at you because you are acting as if you have not clicked on and read that link. Please do so now if you haven't already done so. In a nutshell, it says we have to be extremely careful about disclosing any sensitive and/or damaging information about living persons even if you have a reliable source. Since Crocker has indicated that he intends to conceal his real identity, that makes it sensitive information and we must be extremely careful about what we disclose and what we don't. Even if you have a reliable source.

If you check the talk page, you will say that I, for one, think his state of origin could probably be included in the article, but not his real name. Other editors may also have different opinions. However, Wikipedia operates by consensus, so it is vital that all controversial changes (such as this one) be discussed on the talk page. You have not really discussed there, other than to make a personal attack against Benjiboi. This is not how Wikipedia operates, and the community is rapidly losing patience with your unwillingness to learn and abide by our rules. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody has disagreed instead they just delete things i write.--WillyJulia (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If people are simply reverting you, then that is a sign that something is amiss and that you should stop reverting them and talk it out, rather than continue the edit-war. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And actually, people have disagreed. People like me. See the talk page, AND the paragraph immediately preceding your assertion that nobody disagrees. I think including his real name is in violation of WP:BLP, and even if it weren't I think it is unethical, since he has committed no crimes and a lot of people hate him. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, you got reverted, now is the time for discussion. Bold-revert-revert-revert-etc. isn't helpful. shoy 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

Resolved

 – Unanimous support for community ban. Daniel has updated the user page accordingly.

I have blocked Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely. He's recently gone back to his old ways of incessant revert-warring and sockpuppetry, with two 3RR blocks within a week. His block history includes a year-long block from Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) as a last chance. Seeing as he has failed to take that chance, I see no reason not to declare him banned. Please review. At the very least, stringent editing restrictions will be required if we decide that a ban is not the way to go here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The user had a long history of edit warring and personal attacks. He blew his last chance(s). WP:NOT therapy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block Edit history shows edit-warring, incivility. This user was warned many times. Enough is enough. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block per Otolemur, and support community ban due to the sockpuppetry. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I don't know this particular user very well, but this thread is convincing, along with a brief review of the block log and its relevant reasons. Rudget (Help?) 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse a block to avoid further damage to WP, not to teach him a lesson, which hasn't taken anyway. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

His talk-page still says he's only blocked for a week. BradV 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a formal notice there. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block. An editor could change over time. But I looked at his recent edits to Strategic bombing during World War II and found no reason for optimism there. His edits were rightly reverted. His source for the facts about the earliest German bombing raids in 1939 was a novel by an East German writer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, unfortunately. I explained to Molobo on his talk page how he can constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but this has been explained to him again and again. When he was blocked for a year by Dmcdevit, it was his final chance to change his ways. However, he has exhausted the community's patience to the extent that short blocks are no longer an option. Khoikhoi 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hopefully in a few months we won't see a topic here where he begs forgiveness and tries to get back in. Jtrainor (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the indefinite block and have marked his userpage to indicate there was a consensus for the indefinite block, ie. a ban. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for desysop of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Heads up in case it gets missed for being added nearer the top of this noticeboard, I posted this notice per the header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless CSCWEM has voluntarily subjected himself to recall there is no way (other than ArbCom) to desysop him. Of course, this lack of recall is in violation of basic tenants of consensus, which this project claims to hold so dearly. Bstone (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a better structure for possible desysopping that doesn't leave admins open to the whims of tendentious editors, feel free to suggest it. Black Kite 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the issue here. Bstone (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I completely see your point (and this is a good example of how the current structure falls down), I don't see anything much in the way of a viable alternative there. The problem with "consensus" is that it's very difficult to measure. Black Kite 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of consensus about how to measure consensus is less of a problem than, or is perhaps a direct result of, the lack of consensus about what consensus actually is. Indeed, if we had consensus about what consensus actually is, we would not need to measure it, but rather we would be able to recognize it when it occurs. That said, I entirely agree with Bstone's short and to the point assessment linked above. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, essentially the idea of "consensus recall" has been repeatedly rejected because nobody has yet proposed a workable system that would prevent such a mechanism from being abused to retaliate against administrators taking unpopular, but policy-compliant, actions. We ask our administrators to do tasks that create enemies - blocks, protections, BLP interventions, et al. Allowing those enemies to have an administrator desysopped by sheer force of numbers would be a disaster for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise no-one has come up with a workable system to deal with admins who have lost the trust of the community. Not everyone who thinks that a particular admin should be de-adminned is "an enemy" - though in my experience that is the first line of attack used against editors calling for such action. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there's a system called the ArbCom. The ArbCom has consistently shown that it is unafraid to desysop admins who have abused the tools. That is the only legitimate reason to desysop anyone - abuse of the administrator tools. We don't desysop as punishment, we don't desysop because we don't like someone, we don't desysop for content disagreements. We desysop because someone has shown, through their actions, that they can't be trusted to legitimately and properly use the rollback/block/protect buttons. If that's the case here with CSCWEM, the ArbCom can make that call. If they feel it's an urgent matter, they can call for an emergency desysop. FCYTravis (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not describe Arbcom as a workable system. It is a system that can be worked, but that is another thing altogether. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the community decides who can be trusted to be a sysop then why do we filter all potential desysopings to ArbCom? No, it's a broken system. The community must decide, not ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not how it works. Again, it is the case that admins may be called upon to take policy enforcement actions that could displease certain parts of the community. If administrators have to live in fear that if they take such actions, they could be targeted for lynch-mob desysoppings, then that creates a powerful disincentive to enforce policy. That is not healthy for the future of the encyclopedia.

If an administrator has misused or abused the tools, then that administrator should have the tools removed. There is no other valid rationale for removing them. FCYTravis (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To me it smacks of some admins holding the community in contempt - basically, they are saying that the community cannot be trusted. Apparently we are capable of deciding who should have the tools, but we aren't capable of deciding that we made a mistake, or that someone hasn't lived up to expectations. An admin can be a bully without actually using the tools - just the threat of use is used by some as a way of preventing legitimate criticism. There are two or three who are almost guaranteed to turn up and threaten editors who criticize their friends - and a lot of other admins who, whether out of cowardice or ignorance, just let it go. Those admins who do call for accountability and responsibility from their colleagues get treated pretty poorly too. It is far, far too hard to get the tools - pretty much guaranteeing that anyone who does get them has put a huge amount of work into getting them, making adminship a very big deal indeed - so then, when it becomes clear that they are no longer the right person to have tools, they and their colleagues will fight the community tooth and nail to stop removal - and in a system which is already designed to make it excessively hard to remove. Adminship no big deal? Wikipedia's biggest lie. Admins have made it a very big deal indeed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The community (and in reality a very small part of it) is entrusted in arguing whether a contributor is sufficiently trusted to be granted the tools - but the decision is that of a 'Crat who weighs the arguments for validity. Being entrusted with the tools, and being recognised as using them appropriately are different matters. There are some nasty little tasks that sometimes have to be done (this matter, for example) and decisions are sometimes taken that will otherwise be unpopular with the community (or a small but vocal part of it). The ArbCom, who are individuals with - presently and historically - sysop work experience, understand the responsibilities and pressures of administration activity and are far better to review complaints then either the community at large or (and especially) the sysop community. It is unfortunate in many ways that the removal of the sysop bit is far more difficult to achieve than the granting, but the sometimes contentious and unpopular work admins do will not get done for fear of having to go through the process (and never mind the result) every time somebody gets upset with a poor or disputed sysop action. Perhaps the community may decide to request temporary/conditional desysopping from the ArbCom more often in the future? Why not? There are more admins than there ever have been... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Lisa-1982

Resolved

 – for now...

User is posting articles on a supposed Mafia family. Totally unsourced and at best a violation of WP:BLP, at worst blatant attack pages. Suggest someone steps in fast. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User now indef blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_and_removing_AfD_tags above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted Mafia boss as unsourced BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probable sock of User:George-hans. I've never really dealt with socks before, anyone want to take a swing? Tan | 39 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Raised block to indefinite. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

...and it's outta here! :-) Tan | 39 22:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Been whacked, as it were? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm Probably sock of a Rico-Rico 1982 (talk · contribs) or something and another IP that I "battled" earlier today. Creating an article on a supposedly mafia family and its boss. Samuel Sol (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved

 – blocked indef

Special:Contributions/Richieleslie is changing sections of articles to copies of others with only the names changed to the article's subject, as well as other vandalism. I've given a test4im, but as he hasn't yet vandalised after that time, I'm reporting it here. TransUtopian (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to Tanthalas39. TransUtopian (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dreamer.se

I posted above, with no administrator response on this user: [49]. the user has been indef blocked elsewhere, and has engaged in fair use violations passed final warnings. Please handle, or say why not to handle. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any recent vandalism and while there are many deleted image uploads from a few weeks ago, lately this editor seems to have been uploading fair use album art with rationales. Could you please provide some diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes some more specific information would be helpful, a quick glance shows no recent final warnings (only fair use di warnings, which the user seems to have rectified). Removing user warnings isn't a prohibited activity on one's talk page. – Zedla (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the previous post, I believe this information is present: the warning is in the deleted versions (if they're still deleted) of the old user talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cbsite resuming edit war, cursing at other user in edit summary

Background: A few weeks ago, User:Cbsite and I had an extended conflict over The Color of Friendship. (I felt it should be a redirect, Cbsite felt it should be a disambig page, I cited a WP guideline supporting my opinion and attempted to discuss the issue, Cbsite ignored all attempts at discussion or building a consensus and just kept reverting it to a disambig. See Talk:The Color of Friendship, and that article's edit history, for further details.) Admin User:Ricky81682 eventually ended the issue by blocking Cbsite temporarily (he then posted this request for block review), and another admin had to protect Cbsite's Talk page to keep Cbsite from removing the block notice; for more details on that, I encourage you to check out the history of User talk:Cbsite, but it's a bit awkward to wade through as Cbsite reverts virtually every single comment made on his or her Talk page, usually declaring them to be "vandalism" no matter what the comment actually says.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this all up again is that today Cbsite once again reverted The Color of Friendship to a disambig, with no comments made; I still have it on my Watchlist, so I reverted it; and Cbsite has now reverted it again, this time with the edit summary, "Don't start with me again, fucking bitch." Given that this seems a fairly strong indicator that Cbsite is no more amenable to discussion or reconciliation of the issue than before, I thought I might as well bring it straight here rather than revert again and wait for Cbsite to break the 3RR and spout more profanity at me. Propaniac (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for blatant incivility. However, I would like a review of this block's length. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. There's no misinterpreting that summary. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicer than I would have been (but there would have been complaints so thanks). It's clear what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a speedy cleanup area?

Resolved

 – parked at AfD

Jay Albertson Park. I can't find my {{sofixit}} mop. Is there a triage area anywhere round here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to clean up. The current article is, in its entirety, a copyvio of this (about a third of the way down the page); and although there are other versions in the history, they have problems of their own. The consensus may be that populated places are inherently notable, but it hardly follows that every public park in every such place is notable. Deor (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent on its way to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Dispute

Alright, I'm bringing this to ANI, as I'm asking for administrative input. Let me give give you a little background information, for those who aren't aware of it. The Prem Rawat dispute has been quite a long dispute on Wikipedia, from what I've gathered, and includes these articles. An arbitration case resulted, where article probation was imposed. Now, I'm mediating the case on the content side of things, and so far, it's remarkably been going OK, albeit with a few bumps in the road, as well as one today, which is why I'm here. This thread started on the Prem Rawat talk page today, as I made a request to all parties here, which they all agreed to. Regarding the edits that were made today, I was asked about them on my talk page here, where Arbitration Enforcement was possibly requested, however, I am not sure if the recent edits fall under the terms of probation. What I am sure of, however, is that something needs to be done, and that is why I am here. I understand this is a contentious topic, and one that few administrators are willing to approach, but it needs some action, whether administrative, well, that's why this needs to be discussed. Thanks, and I hope something can be done here, whether its AE, protection, or whatever it is, something. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator, in which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) agreed to the terms of the mediation. But today, he went ahead and made these unilateral edits bypassing the agreement. See also this user's block log. Why should active editors that are making excellent progress in constructive discussions in proposal pages set forth by the mediator be penalized with article protection? User:Francis Schonken should do the right thing by self-reverting and following the process that has been agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, at the moment, this "suggestion" that I made, remains that, a suggestion, and a mediator has no ability or power to enforce anything, merely to make suggestions. Possibly, this suggestion could be somewhat solidified? I think such things as a topic ban should really be used as a last resort, but one thing I do know, something does need to be done. Perhaps the edits made by Francis should be undone, that is not really my call to make. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Your suggestion was accepted as a sound proposal by all active editors, as a step in dispute resolution, and an orderly debate is currently taking place because of that. Why should the disruption of that process be allowed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that it should be, however I think that a topic ban here would be extreme, and that's why I'm asking at ANI. I note that no one else has commented here....as I thought, no one wishes to touch a topic such as this... Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that the one edit has disrupted the dispute resolution process. There hasn't been any disruption that I've noticed. Jossi hasn't even objected to the substance of the edit, only to the process. This is just informal mediation. If folks want to get caught up in procedure then they should pursue formal mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about "process" but about fulfilling commitments made. Francis should undo these changes and discuss them as we all are. Wyy should he be exempt of making edits without discussion as agreed? Should other editors simply go ahead and bypass the mediation process, forfeit the agreements made and let hell lose all over again? Is that what you are asking we do? I find this to be completely unacceptable behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just informal mediation - Not a very nice way to describe the good efforts of a MedCab volunteer, which has led for the first time in a long time to an orderly debate, consensus, and true collaboration, is it? I would have hope that such efforts would be more appreciated, rather than be dismissed as it was nothing. Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will is right. As I stated previously on the Rawat Discussion page, this process is only informal mediation, with no formal requirement to adhere to this process. Let's separate the process from the people. I think we all believe that Steve is doing a fantastic job and that his efforts are much appreciated. It is unhelpful to make personal comments such as shameful, about a stating a fact that the mediation is just informal, when you know that Will (and myself) strongly support what Steve is doing.

• Having said that, I agree that the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation, but any formal complaint needs to stand on its own feet in respect of the specific editing, and this case hasn't been made yet.Savlonn (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• While I do appreciate your comments about my efforts, I didn't bring this to ANI to be complimented :-). I brought it here to see if any further action needs to be taken regarding the recent edits, and I am still waiting on outside input from a user/administrator that isn't actually involved in the dispute. I'd appreciate outside input. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary - it can be frustrating when parties feel that an editor isn't respecting the mediation or their agreements, but that's a conduct issue as opposed to content and needs to be dealt with in another format. As far as this particular situation goes, since it just came out of arbitration and the committee didn't feel sanctions were necessary, its unlikely that a single act by an editor, regardless of how frustrating, would rise to the level of needing sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):

• User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic A
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Criticism: section content
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat#Secondary source on Collier
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Cagan, again
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#First Impression (Again)

Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.

I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you have participated in the mediation pages, that is not disputed. Just that suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussions you decided to delete material, add new material, and change the article structure. All this without an attempt to explain your edits or make proposals as everybody else is doing. So far four editors have asked you to re-consider and self revert: Rumiton, and myself in article's talk, Will Beback in your talk page, and user Savlonn in this thread. So I would hope that in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building, you do the right thing, by self-reverting and making proposals that can be discussed and assessed alongside all others proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, stop the harassment --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to self-revert is not harassment. shoy 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to do something once is not harassment. Making the same request over and over in multiple forums may be harassing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< So I take it that [[User:Francis Schonken will not voluntarily self-revert. This is noted for the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• That may be so, but what can be done here? This doesn't fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, as far as I know. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I add my voice to those who are asking Francis to self revert. And I would remind Admin WillBeback, who reverted me within the hour for "no consensus" [50], that he should apply the same rules to Francis as he does to me.Momento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney makes an excellent observation. Here's hoping this particular disagreement dies down, as such things often do. If concerns continue regarding elements outside the current arbitration decision, suggest initiating a formal request for clarification on the case. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor making personal attack

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 3 hours, to be blocked for a longer period if problems resume. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check out User talk:Andyvphil where 24.12.114.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is at 7RR or 8RR (more or less) calling this editor a WP:DICK.[51] The IP has been warned several times. I'm filing a new report here because this is only tangentially reported to the larger issue discussed here in the past few days. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I'm linking to WP:DICK. I've asked for help in numerous places, but NO ONE has given me an answer to how this is a personal attack. Why does the link exist?!? 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked that one myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who we get with an unblock request if that IP gets blocked... Avruch^T * ^ER 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should take a look again at the boldface message at the top of the meta page to which your link redirects: "The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." Your very first edit (from this IP, at least) was "Maybe if you would stop acting like a complete WP:DICK …" Deor (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep an eye out for this editor possibly being a WP:SOCK. If they've never edited Wikipedia before they're learning awfully fast. Warnings on people's talk pages, threats to "report" the editors reverting the dick comment, found the report here without a courtesy notice....something is a little odd. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit my first attempt at linking to it was in bad form, but I still fail to see how putting a link to it as I did the last umpteen times is wrong. I give up. 24.12.114.215 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked the editor to promise to stop doing it to give people a chance to explain things. If "I give up" means what I think it means, perhaps a block can be avoided. Cheers - I'm off for the rest of the night. Thanks for the help. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stunts like this AIV report are pure WP:POINT and I have blocked accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. If this sort of thing resumes, a longer block would be entirely reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regard abuse of Wikipedia policies by user

Well, it has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the administrators that a particular user from Pakistan, through a set of anonymous IPs has been indulging in personal abuses, POV pushing and racism against India.

He has violated the following rules: WP:CIVIL ([52],[53],[54],[55],[56]), WP:3RR ([57][58]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV

However, I observe that nothing has been done to this regard. Moreover, this last edit by the same editor clearly indicates that the user is unrelentive and gives the impression that the admninistrators are acting partisan in this regard. This is a very serious issue and may have far-reaching consequences. If this editor is allowed to continue uttering his venomous racist nonsense then I may have to escalate this matter.

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing.

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the diffs, it looks like his "racist nonsense" is actually accusing you of racism. Since you accuse him of the same, in the above post, I'm not sure what an admin could do to help - other than ask you both to make more of an effort to discuss things with one another in a civil manner. ETA Accusations of sock-puppetry have also gone both ways. The names of banned users User:NisarKand and/or User:Beh-nam have been mentioned. Something for a CU to look into, in their copious leisure time, perhaps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New sock of blocked User:Bov

67.170.205.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been editing Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center exactly the same way Bov and his known sock have. I don't know if a checkuser is necessary, but, again, I can't block because of previous edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bov isn't blocked as far as I can tell. The last block in his block log is dated 16 March 2007.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His primary IP (152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is blocked for multiple edit warring, and it's noted in the block note that it applies to Bov. If Bov edits, it would clearly be considered bypassing the block of his (static) IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih

This user has a warning for personal attacks and threats less than 24 hours old and continues:

• [59] - "Our belief is that the only reason Mr Russell is here is for sectarian harassment purposes, … It is our belief that Mr Russell is following a guideline and directive by the Internet committee of the Haifan Bahai organization to harass us, so we hereby reserve our rights at law. We also believe this individual is now stalking all our submissions on wikipedia."
• [60] - The whole passage is too long to quote here.
• [61] - Again, it's too long to repeat here.

This user is edit warring on Ayahuasca:

• [62]

This user is harrassing me on my talk page with accusations of vandalizing Talk:Juan Cole:

• [63]
• [64]

How many blocks does this guy get? MARussellPESE (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone didn't get my e-mail....

I wanted to give them a chance to read and understand what I was trying to tell them, but it seems not to have stuck. They've been blocked for a month--I consider that pretty generous, seeing as how I was originally thinking six weeks might be the magic number. --jonny-mt 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request a block review

Only you can prevent forest fires. Smokey slaps everyone with his shovel.

I just got off a block (my first) by Kylu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The background is, while doing the same image patrolling, cleanup, and moving I have been doing for months, I ran across multiple uploads by Ryulong (talk · contribs) that had WP:NFCC problems, the main one being that they didn't specify the copyright holder of the work per WP:NFCC#10a. I started flagging them to be fixed, but shortly after got a message from Ryulong telling me to stop and that (s)he would fix them because the talk page messages were annoying. I initially offered to consolidate all templates into a single message (as a matter of fact, I did exactly that earlier today after reviewing uploads for AreJay (talk · contribs) - this is my normal practice, I have done the same thing with images by SDC, Endlessdan, SlimVirgin, and others). In response, Ryulong protected his/her talk page (presumably so they could not receive any questions about image uploads.) I got a message from Kylu shortly thereafter from telling me to stop reviewing Ryulong's uploads. After I got that message, I stopped flagging Ryulong's images for copyright problems, to allow Ryulong time to fix them, and only was tagging for non-controversial housekeeping stuff - in fact, I was tagging non-free images that inappropriately high-res images in the image history with {{non-free reduced}} (which doesn't affect the current version) and I was fixing redirect links in the fair use rationales. I was nonetheless blocked. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You continued to edit after the request to stop, without a comment (see your contribs). Either:
   1. the New Messages bar was ignored (always a bad idea), or,
   2. there was some server-side technical difficulty that prevented you from seeing it, which is my AGF assumption, and therefore the block was to give you the opportunity to review the conversation, or,
   3. you were using the tool in an automated fashion, such as with an autoclicker, which would qualify as botting without prior permission. (This is the not-so-AGF assumption)
2. These edits were focused on one specific individual, Ryulong, instead of simply looking at all new uploads. Please see your contribs during this time frame: they were all dedicated to the images being worked on by one individual, and until he protected his talkpage, left notices there also.

Now, granted I also disagree with his protecting his talkpage, I left him a note about it elsewhere and he agreed that I could remove the protection. There's only one method of preventing a user from editing multiple pages, however. This being a collaborative project, discussion is a vital step in preventing conflicts and would've prevented this block. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is there's no rule saying Kelly had to listen to you, given that Kelly wasn't doing anything wrong in tagging the images. You can't block people just because they don't listen to your advice. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you were not blocking because of the activity directly. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm confused here - if you notice a pattern of problem uploads by a particular user, you are nonetheless not allowed to review that user's uploads? This has never been a problem before (well, I guess it kind of was a problem with SlimVirgin (talk · contribs).) Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deemed of concern at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the ultimate result of that? Is reviewing a user's logs not allowed? Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - found the arb case.[65]

7) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

9) Where the validity of non-free images is disputed, and especially when these are tagged for speedy deletion, it is important that the uploader be notified of this.

Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From first glance, this feels like an overly harsh application of WP:DTTR (an essay). Since this has come up numerous times, with many editors, I think we really need a policy instead of an essay regulating something that is apparently blockable. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Bad block, though it has me confused.. Kylu seems to indicate that he's using the block because you were not seeing the "you have new messages" bar? I guess there was no malicious intent by Kylu, and he was using the block as a technical attention grabber? -- Ned Scott 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly to make sure that the conversation was read and partly to block illegitimate botting, were that the case, though I'm happy to see that this doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm not a "he", by the way. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not using a bot, I was using Howcheng's script...so penis vandals get 4 warnings before blocking, but I get none? Kelly ^hi! 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't use a block as an attention grabber like this unless it was something really important. I do understand Kelly's annoyance, but at least the block log does note that the block was only for a technical matter, and not for behavior. Forgive and forget time, maybe? -- Ned Scott 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to drop it if Kylu put an entry in my block log to say the block was an error - I've asked on her talkpage. Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely inadequate. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't know how else to say this, but this just as frustrating as fuck. On the one hand, I have people have thanking me for applying copyright experience and participating in Featured Article reviews. So when I attempt to consistently apply WP:NFCC, no matter how polite I attempt to be, everything is fine until I look at an admin's image uploads, then I get threatened with blocking and accused of stalking and personal agendas. I got threatened with blocking for looking at SlimVirgin's uploads the other day, and now I actually got blocked for looking at Ryulong's uploads. Just what the hell is going on? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I use the same method when I do my image and template runs, usually they are small enough a person does not mind. My suggestion would be to do a run through a person's entire upload record, and then post 1 note to their talk page listing all the images that need fixing. I agree that if a person has 1 or 2 mistagged images, odds are they have more, but many people strongly dislike templates (despite the fact we have them for a reason). MBisanz ^talk 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But I already do' consolidate all templates into a single message - I do this with all users whose images I review, and I told Ryulong in advance that I would do this. I pointed this out and gave examples above. Kelly ^hi! 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean more like 1 edit saying:

Image 1 has X, Y, and Z wrong

Image 2 has X, T, and Z wrong

Image 3 has G, H, and Y wrong

and so on. MBisanz ^talk 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine - I deserved to get blocked. Somebody else enforce the non-free content criteria. Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I asked you to stop and slow down and I would review my own image uploads, which I was doing, except the orange bar and my talk page being flooded by those template messages was detracting from my attempts at fixing things on my own. I've been here for two years, and I'm well aware of how things should be tagged, deleted, undeleted, etc. After you simply seemed to ignore my requests, as well as tag images that I had fixed due to your initial messages, and the constant posts to my talk page, I protected it so I could get some work done. Now, every image I've uploaded that was non-free I've looked over and made sure it mentioned everything necessary, and deleted over-sized versions that had smaller resolutions uploaded, etc. The Abu badali decision has always been cited in situations like this, but I was aware of the issue, went about fixing it. In the short period of time you were blocked, I fixed everything I thought needed fixing. I even found a copyright violation on the Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That might have been relevant save for the fact that I was blocked after I stopped posting to your talk page or flagging "your" images with disputed fair use tags. Kelly ^hi! 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You stoped both of those after I protected my page because you did not heed my request and during the reverting and editing I had to do to review every image I personally uploaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In my view, double standards are being applied here. I had some problems with Kelly's work in the past (on other image issues), but in general Kelly does do good work with images. It is worrying that Kelly only ran into problems when pointing out image issues with SlimVirgin and Ryulong . It seems there are different standards for some people compared to other users. Not sure whether it is an "admin" or "vested users" situation, but in my view SlimVirgin and Ryulong should not have been so defensive. If a bot had dropped off those messages, what would their reaction have been? I agree Kelly should consolidate messages before dropping them off, not before, but the block by Kylu and the page protection by Ryulong were both poor judgment. Page protection isn't meant to be used to "turn off the orange bar", and blocks are not meant to "grab attention" unless it is clear there is a problem. In my view, this needed to be discussed, with patience and waiting for replies, not with blocks that are saying "stop and discuss first". Messages on a talk page, no matter how annoying, are not something to block people for. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's a bot, they usually don't come about 12 at a time. And if it is a bot, most of the time I don't care about the images in question and I remove the messages from my talk page (in the beginning of Betacommandbot's run, I just opted out for him).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. You haven't commented on your protection of your own talk page. Given that both Kyllu and me have said that this was not appropriate in this case, I take it you agree with that part of things? Do you have anything to say about how Kelly's work normally meets with no problems, but if the work runs into people who (a) get upset and (b) have people watching out for them, then there are problems? Either Kelly needs to change the way she does things, or some people think different rules apply for them. Or both. Which is it? Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It was an impetuous move such that my page would not be inundated by "This image has an improper fair use rationale" or "This image needs old revisions deleted" or "This image is up for IFD" messages while I was actively editing the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would phrase the question differently: If an editor discovers that another editor has uploaded/tagged a series of images incorrectly, is it permissible to check all of their uploads, and in what time period does the uploader have to self-check their images before all of them are tagged? IMO once I see one incorrect images, all of that editor's uploads should be checked and tagged as needed. I don't think message bars are damaging and AFAIK, there is no policy that says "you may only notify X times per hour" or "you must respect a person's wishes not to be notified of tags". Maybe we need to re-write our tagging guidelines to discourage notification if so many people object? MBisanz ^talk 07:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines or not, am I the only one who thinks that posting a dozen or so messages one after another to a single editor is disruptive? It would drive me crazy! I don't mind a bot doing it (although even BCB rarely did it this way, even on a big run) but another editor? It's harrassment. And going through one established editor's contributions looking for faults is also harrassment in and of itself. Then telling the editor to stop and having them ignore you? That could easily be taken as proof of harrassment. No, we don't need a change in guidelines here, we just need people to use commonsense and to remember to not template the regulars with such gusto. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If a user is found to have uploaded a images under faulty rationales, going through them all to check for compliance is really, really not "harrassment". Neıl 龱 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←Not in isolation, no. But coupled with a dozen templates on your talk page that don't stop even after a request, then, yeah, harassment is what it looks and feels like (regardless of whether it actually is). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that the usual tagging scripts (such as Twinkle) often do the notification automatically and apparently can't always be stopped from doing it. So you're left with the choice of either annoying the other user, or having significantly more work doing the tagging by hand. The obvious solution would be to make sure that the scripts get configured in such a way that notifications can be switched off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have found that continuing editing while the "new message bar" is displayed solves the problem - since it is the same as not being online while someone sends a message. When I have finished whatever I am doing I can then reviw my talkpage, and once in a while there is more than one message - just like when I log on off an evening. If whatever you are doing is not so important as to read your latest message, which can be the case, then it is merely a niusance to respond and find another message soon after. If you are doing something else that requires your undivided attention, ignore the message bar. It doesn't flash any brighter or more often if there is more than one message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...ignore the message bar. It doesn't flash any brighter or more often if there is more than one message." - LOL! That is very true. I sometimes do that as well, though admittedly I would stop to think whether it might be urgent (if I had just done something that might be controversial), but, in general, the thing that brings someone a cropper is the thing that they thought was uncontroversial and "obvious". Most people (me included) don't have that self-restraint though. It is like "MUST CLICK ORANGE BAR... MUST CLICK ORANGE BAR". Once you have developed the self-control to ignore a ringing phone, or a beeping e-mail alert, or whatever, and finish what you are doing first, it can be quite refreshing and liberating. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly related issue

User:MBisanz and User:Ryulong tag-teamed me to block me to get me away from editing an article that where I questioned the source (I was blocked by MBisanz for putting a tag on an article requesting a fact check)[66]. Ryulong's assertion that his talk page is being flooded by anything after he hounded me on my talk page is a good laugh--he couldn't stop posting on mine after I asked him to stop, so it's do as he says, not as he does, which is typical Wikipedia behavior established/new editors: you'll be bashed over the head with policy, but don't try quoting it to an established user and don't template them, they're somebody, not anybody.. You can't win this one, once you've questioned an article or edit by Ryulong, Kelly, you're too new here, and they're going to let you know it. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] If you complain, you'll just bring a whole lot more established editors to harangue you out of editing Wikipedia. Yes, copyvios are a serious issue on Wikipedia, but serious editing is not what anyone is wanted to do.--Blechnic (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I now just edit crap and argue for and against deletions instead of doing technical editing in my area and no one bothers me. --Blechnic (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Your addition here is just an ad hominem attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are some serious allegations, and I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. Someone care to analyze the evidence? Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree. I apologise for inserting the "off-topic" section header, and have changed it to "possibly related". In fact, it should be a separate section, probably, but I'll keep out of it now, as my initial edit and now my apology means it would be best for someone else to look into this. Apologies again for trying to keep the issues separate without looking into the allegations by Blechnic. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does appear as though in the examples Belchnic gives, Ryulong was doing exactly the same thing Kelly was blocked for, namely, continually adding messages to talk pages despite the recipient indicating the message had been received. This is pretty hypocritical. Neıl 龱 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ec x2)I've spent ten minutes looking at this. First off, the edits in question are all back in May, so I would have hoped that Blechnic would have got over it by now. Second, Blechnic doesn't seem to be the easiest person to get along with, managing to rub-up the wrong way several people he's been in contact with and fond from the start of writing long, bold-text rants about how unfair things are here and especially how named admins are clearly abusive. That said, Ryūlóng didn't help matters by reverting his talk page to try to get the message across, but others agreed with the action at the time and the page ended up protected to stop the rant being reinserted. My recommendation would be for Blechnic to drop this, as he's on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing it and taking it further may lead to in-depth investigation of his editing which might not be to his advantage. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - do we really need to resort to threats? The removal of Blechnic's rant is not the issue, rather Ryulong's repeated addition of the same or similar messages. I would also point out May wasn't that long ago. Neıl 龱 09:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stop talking about this or we will investigate you" - no, not really. More, if he does pursue this, the behaviour of both will be looked into and he (Blechnic) isn't pristine white. He is, of course, entitled to take this further. I just doubt it is a good idea, on grounds of drama if nothing else. As I say, Ryulong doesn't come out of this too well either, but I can see fault on both sides. And it was a month ago, since when Blechnic has been editing happily, so this is a bit of "picking at a scab". But your mileage may vary, of course :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue in question is a month old and is not the exact same thing.

• Kelly repeatedly placed image warning templates on my user talk due to the script being run to tag images. While I was planning on fixing every image, I asked Kelly to stop and I would do the work on my own (which is seen on User talk:Kelly). This was followed by continued tagging of images and my user talk, after which I protected my user talk. During this time, I asked Kylu for assistance with Kelly as I wanted to make sure I checked all of my images.
• With Blechnic, I was trying to contact the user, and he removed everything saying I was taunting or abusing editing priveleges. He continues to assume bad faith, and his resultant block was for disrupting an article featured in the DYK, which I subsequently re-referenced because everything I had added was questioned and attacked.

Now, how are these two situations in any way related other than the user talk page being edited (in two completely different ways)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Kelly places messages on your talk page. You do not want these messages. Kelly keeps putting them on there.

2) You place messages on Blechnic's talk page. Blechnic does not want these messages. You keep putting them on there.

When boiled down, the two situations are similar. The difference is you protected your page to prevent further messages, and then you asked Kylu to deal with Kelly, which she did by blocking her - one or the other of these was wholly unnecessary, I believe the block. What point was there in blocking Kelly for templating your talk page, particular given a) the templates were correct, and b) you'd already protected it to stop her communicating with you further? Rather than insisting on her stopping because you were "dealing with your images", you could have just as easily stopped and waited for Kelly to finish going through them, instead of getting Kylu to block her - did that even occur to you? Neıl 龱 10:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because I could go through things much faster without having to undo various edits after I had already fixed the fair use rationales on several images and before I could just go through my uploads myself and fix everything such that Kelly would not have to continually post the same message on my talk page? Given the rate, my page would have been flooded by the image templates, when protecting it (temporarily) so I could fix images in exactly an hour's time. Every fair use image I have uploaded is now tagged properly, has the copyright owners listed, and all that needed revisions deleted have had the revisions deleted. I asked Kelly to stop. Kelly didn't. Blechnic should really have moved on, but instead used this as an excuse to bring up a month's old resolved dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pedantry: By definition, if one party is still bringing a dispute up, it's not resolved. Neıl 龱 12:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was no problem for an entire month.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block or whatnot, but I wonder if this doesn't really boil down to "don't use Howcheng's shortcut when going through someone's uploads and tagging bunches of them"? Its fine for one offs here and there, but its rather silly to be using it knowing you're going to spam the crap out of someone. I know Kelly's trying to be helpful, but there have been several times in the past few months that her actions have been seen as incredibly abrasive and she doesn't seem to have taken that in to account. Maybe we should give some thought to notifying established editors to review their images if someone comes across a few instead of plowing through their uploads and spamming them to death? Its not as if someone won't come across their images again later if they don't fix them all. I guess I just don't understand why people who do mostly image work always seem to have the attitude that people shouldn't get upset when they're being a pain cause "its necessary" - if those folks just thought for a minute, they could figure out a way to do it and not be a pain ;) Shell ^babelfish 10:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree there - it is always better, even with a new editor, to list all the problematic images in one message, together with what is wrong with them and what needs to be done. Neıl 龱 10:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, my response sounded a bit one sided there. Its just as important for folks who are getting image template messages to understand that the work does need to be done and much worse things could happen in your day than getting a spammy talk page. Shell ^babelfish 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a dozen or so messages in very quick succession, including ones sent after a request to stop. Much worse things could happen in your day, but in your Wikipedia day, this would be close to the top of the list. IMHO. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes little sense to continue after one has been politely asked to stop. Checking images may be a required task, but leaving a template message on someone's user page isn't. Shell ^babelfish 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave a note on user Foo's talk page saying, "Hi there, I'm spamming a jillion image template messages to User_talk:Foo/img_tmp. Please have a look at them when you have time, thanks!" Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been flooded with image templates myself; look at my talk page archives. It's very annoying, but I grin and bear it; I don't start demanding that the people who do it be blocked. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what a truly bad block by Kylu. Kylu, are you open for recall? I think you should seriously consider your status as an admin. Bstone (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's comment that penis vandals get 4 warnings before blocking, but I get none? hits the nail on the head here. In that context, this block was unconscionable. Kelly was not disrupting the project in a manner that was visible to the public; she was being mildly annoying to another user (who happened to be an admin).

Worse yet, there was no final warning. If Kelly's templatized message had been "Ryulong eats his own farts", and this was reported to WP:AIV, the report would be declined. How messed up is that?

The message here is that we as a community are more concerned about stopping annoying template messages from appearing an admin talk pages than we are about the general public seeing vulgar and defamatory information on article pages. No wonder Wikipedia has such a bad public image.

Perhaps we have spent so long assuming that "penis vandals" are acting in good faith that we no longer care about good faith intention. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd hope that penis vandals would get zero warnings before a block. But that may just be me. shoy 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people scream "OMG RECALL!" when someone disagrees with someone else. What a world we live in. -Pilotguy contact tower 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not advocating recall. I just think the block was way out of process, and I endorse Kelly's request that an admin enact a procedural 1-second block against Kelly with a comment clearing her of wrongdoing, so that she has an effectively clear block log.

Failing that, I advocate that Kelly be allowed to put giant pictures of dicks on four pages of her choosing, without repercussion. After all, she's already been punished as if that's what she did... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do certainly agree with that point. Suspensions if not desysoppings should be handed out for this. Now this is just too confusing. I have better work to do than this. -Pilotguy contact tower 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved

Warnings before final warnings? What's all this crap? I received one warning, and it was my final warning.[74] And, then Ryulong came along to antagonize and provoke me, which he succeeded in doing very well, and I am now under threat of being permanently banned from editing Wikipedia if I ever put another tag on an article. Don't tell me it's resolved and threaten me with, well, hell, you've already given me a one warning/final warning for being concerned that an article contained copyrighted matieral (what Kelly is trying to do), and then threatened I'll be banned if I tag another article incorrectly. That's right, for the sin of questioning the accuracy of an article I will be banned from the community forever. --Blechnic (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm a technical writer in tropical plant diseases, what I came to edit and would love to edit on Wikipedia, an area where Wikipedia is sorely deficient, but I can't safely do this, because I see what the original threat I leveled against the community is and remains: expertise. Now I just edit crap to pass the time while on remote watch. --Blechnic (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, oh, I just tagged some attack pages as candidates for speedy deletion, someone better ban me right away!!!! --Blechnic (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blechnic, if you want to edit articles on tropical plant diseases, you should be able to. I've left a note on your talk page offering advice and support if you need it. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No thanks, I'll just be banned for tagging something, since there are few facts, lots of speculation, and tons of misinformation in the few article son tropical agriculture en.Wiki has, and tags are a way of alerting both readers and other editors, and are a necessary editing tool that I am forbidden to use. --Blechnic (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're not forbidden to use them. I can't speak for the precise situation as I am just about to run out the door and have no time to investigate, but I can say this is not "Wikipedia vs the user", it's a single case of over-reach of admin powers (i.e. it's not supposed to happen and is correctible if it is) and as long as you keep within our policies (most notably assuming good faith and not personally attacking on the pages you work on or with the users you deal with) neutral admins will be able to sort the situation out. (I'm not suggesting you have been in violation, it's more of a catch-all.) Orderinchaos 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I think if you get warned once that you will be blocked if you tag an article again, then get blocked, then get threatened with a permanent ban because you're pretty pissed off at getting blocked for tagging an article, then you are forbidden to use tags under the threat that you will be permanently banned from Wikipedia if you tag an article again. It's not better telling me that I was lied to before. Anyway, this is tiresome, fact is, Kelly did the forbidden: she tagged the page and/or article of a preferred editor, and, gods forbid, and admin. She will be hounded out or be under cloud of permanent banning threat should she attempt to act like an editor again. I'm sure that Ryolong, as an admin, should be thoroughly excused for not knowing and following the policies for his uploads, too. --Blechnic (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools?

This seems to be a pretty shocking abuse of admin tools. While there could be improvement to Kelly's methods, I think few would doubt that what Kelly is doing is a benefit to the project in helping out with image copyright issues. For an admin to page protect their talk page just so that they aren't "annoyed" by other editors good faith communication with them is crazy and completely contrary to the page protection policy. Kelly's edits were not vandalism and were not harassment. By taking the action of uploading any image, you are willfully submitting yourself to other editors reviewing your image and notifying you of problems. If you don't want to be bothered with any communication about images, don't upload anything. But seriously, if you know that someone is going through images and you're going to get some templates--How hard is it to just step away from the computer, get some coffee and then come back and delete them all from your talk page. What lasting damage to your talk page (or more importantly the project) was at risk by Kelly's notification that would warrant a page protection? And then the block....absolutely outrageous and completely out of the scope of the blocking policy. When admins are blocking editors in good standing for good faith and important work that benefits the project, we have some serious issues here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this argument develop for about a day now, and I think I'm finally going to throw my two cents (sorry for the American centric idiom) into the fray. Granted this is all just my opinion, so I'm going to say that now and not after every statement I make below. I think nobody did anything that bad, and all three of you did something a little uncivil. Somehow these three little acts added up to the large dispute we have here. Now everyone is assuming that the situation is someone's falt. I think arguing who's fault it is is a little silly. It was the combination that caused the problem, not any one of the three editors involved.

• Kelly, It's all about the Ryulong's talk page. You were automatically (I assume with Twinkle) sending him a new message every 30 seconds, which more or less prevented him from doing anything else. Nevertheless, the tags on the images were valid, and going through one user's upload log is perfectly propper. In fact a rule preventing this would be quite silly if you think about it. I think the biggest problem is the use of automatic tools. A single the following images you uploaded have been tagged message would be a lot more polite.
• Ryulong, you have a week after the template is posted to fix the copyright issues. If you know you're getting hit with a lot of templates about copyright issues, just ignore them until they stop. The page protect seems a little excessive. I agree that Kelly should have slowed down when you asked her to, but she was under no obligation to do so.
• Kylu, was the block really necessary? If the issue was Ryulong's talk page then no. If the issue was the tagging of the images, then maybe. It still seems like more of an escalation that was really called for, but 30 minutes is pretty minimal and the log entry does not suggest Kelly was violating any policies or anything.

I think we admins need to be very careful not to appear to be using our tools to push Wikipedia in a particular direction. Whether it be in article space or WP space or even talk space. I'm not suggeesting that anyone did that, but appearances matter too.

My inclination would be to say that what's done is done. It's time to move on. I think we do need to have a discussion about image-tag-notification-template-spamming but it should be done in a broader context than in a discussion about these three editors. So I would say everyone should chill. Kelly, no the block might not have been the best way to go about it, but it worked, was minimal (as far as blocks go), and does not damage your reputation. Let it go. --Selket ^Talk 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I support Kylu's block. Kelly targeted me recently, going through every single image I'd ever uploaded, and tagging them liberally for deletion (including the ones that were clearly PD and/or had OTRS tags), or tagging them for a move to the Commons, though I asked him to make sure a local copy was kept. He started two AN/I threads about it, multiple threads on various deletion pages, on my talk page, on other people's talk pages, and on an ArbCom case. I had to ask him several times to stop posting on my talk page and to consolidate the discussion, to no avail. He then started pursuing me in other areas: he objected to a semi-protection I'd been involved in, and he "warned" me about the Israel-Palestine ArbCom ruling. Several admins warned him to stop, and he responded by becoming quite abusive toward them, and removed the warnings from his talk page with the edit summary "remove bogus threats." [75] I hope the block makes him reconsider his approach. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Will your comment add anything constructive to this discussion, when there is already animosity between you and Kelly? Best to stay clear of each other. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point this out for the future. Kelly is one of the rudest and most aggressive users I've come across in a long time. S/he writes misleadingly about her actions, removes people's corrections of her claims from her talk page, removes admin warnings, and creates forest fires of discussion in order to (as I see it) almost harass whoever she's decided to focus on. This kind of attitude is particularly inappropriate while handling image issues, because people do get upset when images are questioned, especially when they're legitimate and have OTRS tags, so people doing this kind of work need to show a bit more tact than is usually needed. I'd suggest that Kelly focus on some other area of the project for a while, or perhaps someone who's experienced with images could act as a mentor. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait what? A fair number of the images you have uploaded, even those with the OTRS tag on them have issues... [76]. Viridae^Talk 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Quite why SlimVirgin is saying that the images are legitimate escapes me. There are genuine concerns about the images, confirmed by people other than Kelly. For SlimVirgin to say otherwise is disingenous. And from what I have seen, Kelly is already experienced enough to more than adequately deal with a wide range of image issues. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion here looks fairly silly all around: Kelly was trying to do good, and managed to become a bit spammy in the process. Ryulong expressed a clear intent to resolve the problem(s) and that there was no need to continue to add many template notices, and requested they be be stopped. Kelly kept leaving notices. A wake-up-block was an appropriate result, not a punishment for Kelly's actions, but just to stop the probably unintentional unneeded spammy behavior. Kylu's block reason even indicated that this was the sort of block used to stop runaway automation. I could only suggest that a shorter block (10 minutes) would have been equally effective.... and that I see no need to have an exhaustive discussion here over the details. Kelly, Kylu, Ryulong, can we all just resolve to continue to try our best and drop this and move on? --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I retract this view. See way below. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"You were automatically (I assume with Twinkle) sending him a new message every 30 seconds, which more or less prevented him from doing anything else." How on earth do you come to this conclusion?!? A "You have new messages" banner at the top of the page does NOTHING to "prevent" someone doing anything on Wikipedia. It's an informative message, not a modal "needs response now" message. I the situation is farcical. Blocking a user for not "stopping reviewing someone's work"?!? Achromatic (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of what I'm pretty sure is many, many people here who stops editing to look at talk page messages as soon as they come in. In fact, admins are expected to stop and respond to talk messages, lest they be thought unresponsive or in case they have done something big-and-daft (which we have all done). The BRIGHT ORANGE BANNER is bright orange because we expect people to notice it - especially vandals and admins. There's really no excuse for sending a dozen template messages one after another, especially after it was requested to stop. I notice no apology from Kelly, who would get a similar shock if they ever did it to me, I'll tell you. It's harassment... or abuse of automated editing tools leading to harassment. Either is blockable. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Kelly shouldn't have spammed template after template on Ryulong's talk page, especially not after being told that Ryulong is working on the images already. But can we assume some good faith here and please stop calling this "harassment"? To me this looks more like a rather unlucky use of semi-automated tools, and I'd advise Kelly to notify a user only once if (s)he is going through someone's upload history in the future to find problem images. (While we're at it, I'd love it if the bots would do the same, but that doesn't seem to be as easy to program as it seems.) --Conti|✉ 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:STALK

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). These logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. - emphasis mine. --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's the double standard issue, not the stalking issue (IMO). Some users are imune from regular notifications of things to fix, and informing them of those issues is reason for a block. Ryulong is one of those users, appearantly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Absurdo ad reductum is rarely helpful. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To post more here would just spread the fire, but I gave some background on image reviewing, and replied to the "spamming" concerns, on my talk page here . Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the self-justification for abusing automated editing tools (It's not my fault, it's just written that way!!) but this whole issue could have been stopped in advance if you'd heeded the request to stop posting repeated templates to a regular's talk page. If that meant manually reviewing the images (and I really don't want to know why, of all the methods of dividing up this backlog, you thought that by editor was a good idea) then that's what you should have done. You are responsible for every edit you make, even if it is automatically produced (by you). And I don't know where you get the "my critics bear grudges" thing from - having had no interaction with you before, I doubt I fall into that (sweeping) category. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is "YOU ARE ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIVITY ON YOUR ACCOUNT" and "DUMB SOFTWARE IS THE USERS PROBLEM; NOT MINE". If twinkle does something un-optimally and people yell at you saying "twinkle did it" doesn't get you off the hook. Either fix twinkle, find a way of using it that doesn't cause problems, demonstrate why nothing better is possible, or don't use it at all. In the general case of going through all images the multiple notices doesn't usually create a problem, but when you single out a user (also a fine thing to do by itself) the multi-notices might cause a problem, and when the user has acknowledged the problem and you continue to tag it *is* causing a problem and you need to stop. If you're unable to beg, barter, or build a better tool and you have to sit on your hands until the user has had reasonable time to resolve the issue... then tough cookies. Now that we're all aware and the blocks are all gone... time to move on yet? --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Redvers and Gmaxwell, nice to see that you noticed my statement that I always clean up the mess left by the script (that is, when I'm not blocked). I stated this numerous times and even provided evidence, but it's just repeatedly ignored. Nice. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a large difference between cleaning up mistakes and not making them in the first place. There's also a large difference between cleaning up mistakes and stopping making them after you have been requested to do so. You sent, regularly and regardless of the outcome, a dozen warnings to an active regular editor. These edits were your responsibility, and you were responsible for the short block you got for ignoring that responsibility. It really is now time to move on... but please don't abuse automated tools in future, or you will be blocked again, especially if you don't understand what the problem was in the first place. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses. I'm all for fixing Twinkle, but as long as it's not fixed, we simply cannot have image cleaners be forced to stop using it and waste a lot more time doing their valuable work, because of a minor annoyance it causes. Serial semi-automatic notifications are a frequent result of image cleanup, I've produced them too. Please be a bit more careful with block threats, because a block made on this basis will be undone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read ЯEDVEЯS message as a complaint about automated messages, but rather a complaint about continuing to flood a user with them after they acknowledged the issue and asked you to cut it out. Very different things... No one is forcing you to use twinkle, you know... I've probably diddled the copyright tags on more images than most pairs of users combined. But I wouldn't ever have had a problem with a user asking me to leave them be while they fix things, I would have just moved on to another set of images for the time being. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going in circles (probably because the thread has gotten so long). I won't repeat myself any further (think I'll unwatch this page for awhile, drop a note on my talk page if a response is needed.) But I'll just point to the beginning of the thread - I did stop when Kylu asked me to (though it was irrelevant because of the talkpage protection) and at the time I was blocked I was only fixing redirect links in rationales and other housekeeping, none of which required any user notifications. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me Kelly was acting wholly in good faith but wasn't aware that when a big batch of images uploaded by an established and trusted editor needs license work, this editor should be notified personally with a single message and plenty of warning (and any tagging can be safely put off for at least a few days, since there are always lots of other images in need of checking). The tools Kelly's been using automatically send out notifications which can't be turned off and she mistakenly, through lack of experience, decided it was more important to carry on tagging the images than heed the pleas from spammed, trustworthy editors. I don't think the block was needed, she had stopped and is a trusted editor, but at 30 minutes (and lifted before it was up), it's nothing either way. This is another lesson about the need to be so heedful when using automated tools. One small mistake by a good faith, knowledgeable and very helpful but relatively new (three months) editor can be multiplied into a big disruption, stirred up even more by not knowing straight off how to handle an understandable landslide she didn't mean to trigger. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, after Kelly's message above I reviewed the history a little more carefully. Kelly stopped spamming Ryulong but continued tagging images in a manner which appeared appropriate. At the point where Kylu blocked Kelly had not edited Ryulong's talk page for almost 20 minutes. With this new understanding I now believe the block was unneeded and inappropriate. I still think everyone was simply trying to do well, and that this is being overblown.. but I thought it would be unfair to not retract my initial opinion. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trouts around

Lets all agree that no one handled this situation The Right Way©

• Kelly should've stopped tagging when Ryulong said he was fixing things
• Ryulong shouldn't have used his admin abilities in a dispute, even if it was to protect his page
• Kylu should've been a bit slower with the block button, given Kelly hadn't been warned a block was imminent.

Now like I said, I'd like to see something added to our blocking policy or our harassment policy about when notifications become harassment/blockable offenses, because right now this area feels very gray. MBisanz ^talk 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Fix the script

In the interest of maybe doing something productive, as opposed to idealogical and procedural wrangling, I copied Howcheng's script to my user space and created a version that does not automatically save the warning to the user talk page (it generates the warning template and edit summary as normal, but leaves it up to the user to actually click the "Save page" button). User:Jaysweet/quickimgdeletenoautosave.js if anyone is interested... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I've added a feature request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility I mentioned to Kelly is that instead of auto-saving the warnings to the uploader's talk page, it could auto-save the warning to User:SCRIPT USER/Warnings for UPLOADER, and then after doing a batch of tagging (as is Kelly's MO), the warnings can be consolidated and copied into the uploader's talk page as a single message, rather than a dozen spams. To do this would require me to actually modify more than one line of code, so if there is interest in this, let me know. I'm not going to just pre-emptively do it unless there is interest. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

According to the timeline I can construct:

• 2:34 UTC [77] Ryulong asks Kelly to stop; saying "I get it. Stop using Twinkle to notify me. I'll go through the images in question and add the copyright holder."

• 2:35 UTC [78] Kelly responds saying "I don't use Twinkle for image notification, normally.", which is true if he was using Howcheng's script.

• 2:42 UTC [79] Ryulong responds saying "Well, just list the images instead of using the silly template."

• 2:44 UTC [80] Kelly adds a message to Ryulong's page saying "I use Howcheng's script to tag images - after I'm finished going through your upload log, I'll come back and consolidate all the spammy templates into a single message."

• 2:45 UTC [81]

Ryulong adds "Well, I'm checking everything now (up to page 2). Some have copyright information, those that don't I'm adding them to."

• 2:46 UTC [82] Kelly tags an image at {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and notifyies Ryulong

• 2:48 UTC [83] Ryulong adds the message "The one's you're doing I've already fixed. Check them D:"

• 2:48 UTC [84] Kelly notifies Ryulong for the last time pre-block of an image tag, continues tagging images with DFUI and FURD.

• 2:49 UTC [85] Ryulong protects his talk page.

• 2:53 UTC [86] Ryulong adds "Would you please slow down? I'll fix the ones that you've tagged and I'll go through my Upload logs on my own, thank you."

• 3:05 UTC [87] Kelly is blocked by Kylu

Now, from what I can tell at no point did Ryulong instruct Kelly to stop leaving him messages, and that he had stopped leaving messages long before the block occured, respecting Ryulong's request. So, it would appear that Kelly was blocked for tagging too many images.

Also, its rather distrubing that Ryulong disabled the unblock request [88] of someone hw was engaged in a dispute with. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhggh, no, see the next edit of Ryulong's on the same page [89]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And that would be the mistake of using single change diffs. Still concerning he made the edit in the first place. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good-faith effort to unblock, to me. Ryulong should have actually unblocked and then made that edit. A bit unfortunate, but no harm done. The longer term effects of this are harder to gauge, though. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines - edit warring and incivility

On the article Gender of God, user Template:User3-small is disruptively editing the lead text [90] and introducing grammatical clumsiness and discord with the title (and therefore implied subject) of the article. Specifically: He is changing "God is a central figure of many religions" to " God or gods are a central feature of many religions", ignoring the fact that the article is specific to God. While I believe he has good intentions, I also believe he has shown enormous stubbornness and refusal to entertain alternate views, and that this is harming the article. Rather than discuss the matter with me, he persistently accuses me of trolling [91], or simply reverts my edits without comment [92][93].

Additionally, the editor is using the talk page as a forum [94]. Since the content in question - part of a personal conversation with another editor - is so long and so clearly unrelated to improving the article, I removed it and urged Alastair to take the conversation to the user's talk page [95]. He immediately reverted this, and shortly started a WQA against me [96], which ended with another editor agreeing that the material is in violation of WP:TALK [97]. Despite this, Alastair has continued to revert its removal [98], insisting that he will do so until he is convinced of his being wrong and until somebody asks him politely to remove it [99]. Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there are two issues:

• Gender of God edits, which seem to be in good faith and probably legitimate.
• Talk page discussion which should be moved to user talk per WQA. I will leave a message on the talk page to this effect.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good summary Toddst1.

Two comments.

1. Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits. Ilkali is the most assertive editor I've ever encountered in two years at Wiki. It was his persistence in reverting stable text, and refusal to accept criticism of his arguments that lead to me raising a WQA for the first time in two years. He has stopped both now, so I'm satisfied.
2. Regarding the talk page discussion, I disagree with moving it, until the edit history and talk page archives of the article are restored from God and gender, and hence the matter can be considered properly. Specifically, discussion of "transcendence" and "imminence" are relevant to God and gender in Christian theology, not simply to Andowney and myself. Discussion of a feminine Holy Spirit is extremely marginal in reliable sources regarding Christian theology, however, at this page it has been the focus of both nearly all article volatility and talk page discussion for two years. Since it often ends up being me and all reliable sources against a random number of editors seeking higher prominence for a feminine Holy Spirit, I claim any text I provide on the subject is important to documenting issues and addressing concerns critical to the reliability of the page. If you wish to pursue the matter, by all means involve as many people as you like and, when you're ready, present both a rationale and a proposal at my talk page, and I will consider it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find a talk page comment that purports to help people to find "a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love" to be not only completely irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia based on the principles of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR; but also somewhat personally offensive and irritating.

I have no comment about the content dispute, but the talk page comment has got to stay gone. It is not helpful in the slightest. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits". Where are the diffs? Where is the evidence?

You are stubbornly insisting on a version of the article that is blatantly at odds with its title. Your claim is that "This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions". No it isn't. It is about the gender of God. That's why it's called 'Gender of God'. Entities that are not God are patently irrelevant. If you want the article to be about deities in general - and I'm not opposed to that - then what's needed is a change of title. Are you willing to consider changing the title? Ilkali (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

Hi. Last night, I got a friendly note from a new user, User:Flyhead. I've never had previous contact with this individual before and it seems he's a model aircraft enthusiast who'd found an upload of a photo I'd taken of one of my own models. I had responded in kind. He and another new user, User:Motofan, are apparently friends and communicate with each other in Swedish on their respective talk pages. My concern is that both of these users and possibly a third, User:Brandblusser, are horribly racist as evidenced by Motofan's placement of a Nazi symbol on Flyhead's page (which I removed on my initial contact) and an equally horrid comment left by Flyhead on the Zulu article. Frankly, I've seen this kind of behavior here before and it worries me. Seemingly friendly and helpful...but not. Is this an AIV issue or what? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Flyhead indefinitely. He has received final warnings before and then made a recent edit to the Zulu article this morning. That sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Requesting review of block. Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise someone to check Motofan (talk · contribs) talk page too, that should deserve him a block, IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In line with their focus of attention; I think the language they were communicating in was Afrikaans not Swedish. Rudget (Help?) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and thanks for the correction of the language. I thought Swedish or Dutch, but Afrikaans is based on Dutch, so there you have it. In the meantime, I think it's wise to let Brandblusser know what's up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's time to block Motofan as well. I just removed that damned Nazi symbol from his talk page; the edit stated that he's a "proud member of the AWB."--PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind for now. He just left nice word on my talk page regarding the use of English. I've advised him against the use of the symbol. His edits to F1 articles seem to be in good faith. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Flyhead has already reincarnated as Babba12 (talk · contribs) (blocked). Motofan has a number of minor sockpuppets including Brandblusser (talk · contribs) and needs a trout slap if he is going to be a productive editor. Thatcher 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. He's apologized for the AWB symbol on my talk pge - twice, in fact - and in reviewing his edits to F1-related articles, they all seem to be sincere and I'd like to assume good faith. I agree that some advice directly from an admin is in order. I'll go get the trout.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cazique

Cazique (talk · contribs) This user has returned from a blocked and immediately has resumed the edit war he was blocked for. See his recent edit history for proof of his reticence to do anything but continue warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uther, you kinda forgot to mention how involved you are. And it would have been courteous to notify the user of this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous now, I'm so bored of it - drama here will solve nothing. It's only a damn redirect you're fighting over. Alex Muller 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drama? The user threatened to game the system, and a couple of IPs popped up to make the same edits as he had been. I'd classify that as tendentious editing, myself, and have left a sharp warning on Cazique's page suggesting not to do that. I've suggested dispute resolution instead of that course of action. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I do agree it's a kind of silly thing to be fighting over. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly, I'd go for an insane thing to be fighting over. Other than Cazique getting his own way with the redirects, I can't see a way for this too end. That's not to say I'm not critical of UtherSRG's behaviour, as I am. To engage in a three-day revert war (over a redirect) for an admin, is frankly unbelievable. Is there any implementable form of mediation that could calm this down? Mark t young (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah, I've stepped into a clusterf&$k. This edit suggests that Cazique is encouraging meatpuppets to keep reverting. I've asked for clarification, and will be keeping an eye on the articles in case they need protecting. Can someone else take a look at this situation? The participants seem to think there's nothing that can be done other than the fighting. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we think there's nothing left other than fighting. However, I do believe that no dispute resolution will have any effect. Blocking Cazique further would work, as would blocking his admitted sock/meat puppets. Short of that, protecting the articles in question would limit Cazique's influence to just himself, cutting off his meatpuppetry. As things stands, I've indef blocked the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, two problems: we don't indef IPs, and you're involved in the dispute here, so using your tools is probably a pretty bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef isn't permanent. It can be undone. Preferably when the conflict is no more. If you think my actions were incorrect, undo it. But perhaps you're right. I'll instead post here what actions I would take instead of doing them. I don't know why someone else hadn't blocked the IPs for whatever period of time when they popped up. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, semi-protection would be in order here. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

True, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Banning Uther and having his adminship removed would solve this. He quite clearly should not be an admin. Cazique (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My being an admin has nothing to do with your edit warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O-kay, bad scene all around here. Uther, please undo your indef-blocks and remove the semiprotection on the articles; you are involved, and should not be using your tools in relation to this case. As I said, I *am* monitoring this, and will semiprotect if it's needed - three IP edits does not require protection. Cazique: as I see you've erased my query about whether you're blatantly recruiting meatpuppets, I'll say this here: the majority seems to be against your point of view. If you feel there's a problem with that, dispute resolution is that way. Further edit-warring - by yourself or by IPs - will result in a block. This is a ridiculous thing to be fighting over, and it's time for everyone to stop. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to dive into the whole history of this dispute you would see that I have already read that and done everything I feel I could do. But how can I reach a consensus when people wish to be ignorant and not answer points I raise and instead ignore me or sidetrack the issues. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this needs to be done the right way. Cazique (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the talk pages and see that the majority of the people involved feel that the current situation is the best compromise. You are the only one continuing to fight. Take it to mediation if you feel it hasn't worked, but continuing to edit war is not acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony - done, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Tony - it really looks like 3RR evasion, and since IP blocks have been discussed, I would say that semi-protection is in order. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that the only edits by both IPs have been edit-warring on these articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. They've made two and one edits on each article respectively; if they continue, an uninvolved admin can semiprotect. Uther is far too involved to be using his tools in this dispute. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction Guettarda, you mean to say have been reverting back to revision without hatnotes which were provided in wrong context. Cazique (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs aside, upon returning from his block (for edit warring, on this series of articles/redirects) Cazique returned to edit-warring on the same articles (his only post-block mainspace edits have been to these articles). The apparently sock/meatpuppetry aside, I think it would be reasonable to reblock based on his immediate resumption of the edit war that got him blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to block you for disobeying wikipedia policies by not assuming good faith and acting incivilly. Don't become involved in a situation unless you are aware of all the facts. Cazique (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Improper AfD - Administrator help requested

In reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (6th nomination). This AfD was opened, in good faith, by an editor who actually wants to keep the entry (though he has changed his comment to delete since I asked him to withdraw the nomination based upon what I am about to explain). He listed no deletion criteria in his nomination, instead making reference to talk page comments that suggest others want to delete the entry. As the nominator has pointed out there doesn't seem to be anything explicit in policy stating that a rationale for deletion must be listed, but it is certainly requested in the instructions on making such a listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, and it is clearly implied in all the policy and guideline pages I can find, like this one: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. As someone who actually does believe this entry merits deletion I believe this AfD is pointless and due to the manner in which it was listed will only cause confusion and end in "no consensus" or some other non-decision. As another editor has commented, there is a logic to follow in these discussions, where conventionally we agree or disagree with the nominator's rationale, sometimes suggesting an alternate remedy, and sometimes amending the rationale. Either way discussion revolves around the rationale, and in this case it cannot. Could and admin please do something about this? Either close the AfD as improper or maybe allow someone else to amend the rationale. If something isn't done soon the comments will keep piling up and we'll just have another failed AfD to add to the list, making it 6 thus far. BTW I want to make it clear that I find nothing willfully wrong with the nominator's behavior and am not asking for any sanctions thereof. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently defended the creation of an AfD on behalf of another user. In that case, I thought it was justifiable as there essentially was a sole nominator who endorsed deletion, even though the person who actually started the AfD was a different user. The 3rd party merely stepped in to assist the deletion-endorser with the technical aspects of listing an AfD (which I can sympathize with).

This is an entirely different situation, where an editor has speculatively created an AfD based on discussions on the Talk page. I don't think there's anyway to avoid "another failed AfD to add to the list", but the closing admin should list it as a "Procedural Close", so it is clear that it was not a true consensus attempt. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Whenever a closer feels that the debate has run long enough, he should mark this as a Procedural close, so that the record will be clear the next time this comes around. Obviously this type of close would allow an immediate good-faith nomination for deletion by an editor who *does* have a rationale for deletion to offer. (If nobody besides the nominator had commented in the debate, I would have suggested a speedy close, but now there are too many comments). EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, wasn't this put up for AfD only a month ago or less, and survived, or am I getting it mixed up with another one? Sticky Parkin 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the last one was over a year ago . All of the previous AfDs are listed on the current AfD page, where I see you (Sticky) have commented "keep". This fact, along with your question here, does not instill the outside observer with much confidence that you reviewed the matter much before commenting. I do not mean offense, but it is disheartening to see editors add weight to one side of a discussion in this fashion. One doesn't have to read everything ever penned on the issue, but a little looking should always presage a vote one way or the other. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Legal Threat

Resolved

 – user blocked indefinitely

In the interest of WP:DOLT, I would like to report an apparent legal threat against Wikipedia (and myself). Here's the edit [100] Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• User blocked for the legal threat. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtman and Malik Shabazz's continued edit war on Arthur Waskow

Previous ANI thread. They continue to edit war, despite templates, warnings and admin intervention. Last time MasterOfPuppets indicated any further edit warring would lead to a 2 day block. Bstone (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both editors were given warnings. Let's see how it progresses from here. --Selket ^Talk 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So they are given warnings after given final warnings? The integrity of the process is failing. Bstone (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion concerning the category on Talk:Arthur Waskow. MasterOfPuppets agreed that Waskow belongs in the category, but Thoughtman removed him again — without an edit summary, as usual. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an involved editor, but was happy my attention was drawn to this page and the person it deals with. An edit-war situation certainly exists. Reviewing however what little evidence there is, it is very hard to see a rationale behind Thoughtman 's reversion of Malik Shabazz's CAT. From the page's details, the CAT seems absolutely appropriate, and [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik]]'s insistence, under challenge, is quite proper. It is up to Thoughtman to provide a detailed explanation of why he persists in holding the page hostage against such an innocuous descriptive category. Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, they are still edit-warring, which is against policy. They have been appropriately warned with threat of block, yet continue to edit war. It's somewhat mind-blogging that they haven't been given a block. Bstone (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that is the technical lay of the land. The objective lay of the land is that one of the two is being disruptive, in editing without reasoned justification for what are otherwise incomprehensible reversions. But if one of the two will not use the talk-page to reply to Shabazz, but simply edits without due recourse to dialogue, I hardly think this imbalance should go unnoticed. I once had to restore 3 highly RS sources that were, in a tagteam effort, consistently reversed without explanation. I was punished, the others sniggled, the text remains defective,. and wiki loses out, simply because an administrator did not happen to use a discretionary word in the right direction, but 'applied the rules'. Admins apply the rules, but they should, in certain cases, look closely at what is happening. Intelligent governments are rule-abiding, but use discretion as well, which is not partisan, but merely a prompt to one of the two parties to play by all the rules (dialogue) and not just the ones that suit them Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What is somewhat mind-boggling is the vehemence with which Bstone is calling for me to be blocked. I've assumed good faith as long as I can, but I'm not going to bite my tongue any longer.

I wonder, Bstone: Are you still carrying a grudge from February, when I helped defeat your attempt to delete Beyt Tikkun (an AfD that was upheld when you tried to take a second bite of the apple at WP:DRV)? Is this whole thing because I didn't support you in your vendetta against IZAK? Maybe it's time to let it go.

In this case I wasn't given "templates [and] warnings"; I was given a single warning. It wasn't a "final warning", it was just a warning, period.

In the last ANI, I wrote that I would pursue dispute resolution. The first step is to discuss the issue on the Talk page, which I did. I didn't think restoring something that was agreed upon on the article's Talk page was edit-warring. But if I was wrong, I think your reaction is completely out of proportion to the offense. Stop making mountains out of molehills. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not even respond to that, Malik. Adding failure to assume good faith to your persistent edit-warring is not professional. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Further personal attacks from User:Radiolbx

Resolved

 – Radiolbx appears to have left, and Milonica's issue is being handled elsewhere

(see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#User:Radiolbx)

User:Radiolbx's personal attacks of me continue - I'm unprofessional and an ambulance chaser now. This all appears to be in regards to a content issue regarding WKHQ-FM, which he admits to working at ([101]). I've tagged his talk page with {{uw-coi}}, but I don't know if it'll make a difference. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And, a jerk. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He is indeed being a little incivil, but I think an issue like this could have been better handled at Wikiquette Alerts. Also, in his [last edit, he said "You win" and hasn't made any further edits (granted that was only like 20 minutes ago). FWIW, I think Radiolbx was acting in good faith (even though his edits were not particularly encyclopedic) and it's somewhat sad that he was driven away from the project so quickly.

If he continues to make incivil comments, let me know and I will issue a warning. But dollars to doughnuts, I think he's done editing here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, and actually wasn't even aware of WP:WQA. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The other person involved here, Milonica (talk · contribs) dropped a note asking for help on my talk page; I'm overloaded, and suggested they try editor assistance. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Nunh-huh Vandalism

Resolved

 – Absolutely, positively nothing to see here -- see my comment

User: Nunh-huh has continuously defied my corrections to the article; Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester. I NEED HELP! PLEASE! He is using his abilities as an Administrator for Vandalism. It is NOT right, and something needs to be done about it! Rbkl (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It's not necessary to bold names as you are doing, nor is it necessary to make numeric lists. I can't speak to the factual details of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content (formatting mostly) dispute, and I can't find any use of admin tools. Am I missing something? --Selket ^Talk 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nunh-huh's last (and only second) revert was at 17:44, 13 June 2008 . Your first attempt to engage him in dialog was at 18:27, 13 June 2008. As of the time I am making this comment, the current revision is your version of the article. What is your complaint again?

In the future, please do not make spurious complaint to the administrators' noticeboard without first attempting to reach a compromise with the user. This is stated clearly at the top of this page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, after three edit conflicts. Rbk1 is trying to bold names and do other edits in spite of the manual of style. Rbk1, your edits are the incorrect ones, here. Tan | 39 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin failed consensus

Resolved

We have already had a debate about Kingsford Smith International Airport (KSIA) to Sydney airport (Since it's known as Sydney Airport and no longer KSIA) [102] and the consensus was to move. Now Admin NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to tell us on the talk page or getting a new consensus, again moving the article back to it's old name which most people agreed to change! Bidgee (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting my move to be reverted, and by the way, I am not an administrator. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, possibly moot) And you gave them, what, 9 minutes to reply to your talk page message before running here? Perhaps you need to at least try to resolve the issue before escalating it? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I did and they replied. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I moved the page back to Sydney Airport. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert Page, is full protection necessary?

Someone put "liberal piece of Crap finally died" on the information about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.112.15 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert passed away approximately 2 hours ago. His page is undergoing frequent vandalism. I wonder if you might soft-lock it for a day or so? 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one... the above was posted while I wrote this entry. 76.126.236.254 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Protection requested for this article. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote "ding dong the witch is dead" under the Early Life section. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.187.244 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of by Brian0918. Page Semi-Protected. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yah he died. protect that topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think fully protecting this page is really necessary, and it seems to contradict what we normally we do with "breaking news" articles. I think this article could use a lot of improvement, and its likely to see most of it while this is still a big story. Can it be put back down to semi-protected, please? Avruch^T * ^ER 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• FWIW, I don't think full protection is necessary either. I don't really see evidence of all-out edit warring in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and AndonicO just downgraded to semi as I was about to leave him a message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Semi protection should be sufficient. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some remarkably hate-filled people out there tonight. Sad. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Immature and looking for laughs is more like it. The sad thing is they are the only ones to find it funny. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since MTP is one of the better Sunday current event shows. This really sucks... :-( --Dragon695 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

• Arcayne (talk · contribs)

As reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?, this user has been constantly unconstructive in Talk:Silence in the Library, Talk:Forest of the Dead, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, User talk:U-Mos#When reverted and User talk:Arcayne. He has been incredibly rude to me (to which bait I may have risen once or twice, which I would apologise for), refuses to give any ground on the points he makes despite facing opposition, continues to edit war, ignores my perfectly reasonable request to wait for the project discussion to end, decides to "ban" me from his talk page after I point out that a comment he made caused me offence, accuses me of all sorts of offences I have not commited, and generally assumes authority and ownership at almost every turn. Wheras he does generally seem to be a good user, I don't believe this sort of behaviour should be acceptable from anyone. U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So ask him about it. What administrative intervention is required here? I can see none. Bstone (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My asking, and indeed any communication I make with him, has led to me being fobbed off with accusations and patronism, as seen mostly on my talk page and Talk:Forest of the Dead. He deleted the last message I left on his talk page saying "sorry chum, but I get the last word here". I can do nothing against a user so adamant and dismissive. I wish for him to listen to reason, and he certainly won't listen to mine, so I came here. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Arcayne has requested U-Mos not to post on his talkpage. Can U-Mos provide any diffs that indicate violation of WP policy? Otherwise, it is just a dispute that both parties should withdraw from or else seek resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with policies, so could not definitely say if he has specifically violated any. But I'd hazard a guess at ownership (refusing to take into account other people's PoV in Talk:Silence in the Library#Removed paragraphs in continuity section), incivility (my talk page) and edit-warring (constant reversions citied in the Editor Assistance page). U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see much evidence that dispute resolution has been tried here... you might want to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Mediation cabal for some help. Above all, keep cool! Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess one of the more frustrating parts of interacting with U-Mos (for me) is the fact that he likes arguing (and has admitted such in his talk page); however, when I disagree with him on policy, he charges OWNership and incivility, which is odd, since that is what I pointed out on his talk page that he runs the risk of having his edits perceived as.
I don't think I've broken any rules or guidelines in either my edits in Wikipedia or my interaction with U-Mos. I have been particularly careful in remaining polite, as this user seems to think that AN/I is his personal complaints department filing reports left and right. And I find myself concerned that someone might eventually think I am doing something wrong. Towards that end, I first asked, then reiterated and finally banned him from my talk page, cutting my interaction with him to a minimum. Some people you can work with, and U-Mos isn't one of those, when it comes to Doctor Who episodic articles. It's done his way, or the voice of dissent is "being disruptive" or trying to own the article. As repeatedly noted by a previous admin, it's mostly a matter of a 'large mouth and a thin skin'.
Perhaps he finds me adamant because the matters we disagree on are content issues, and some of the content centers around the addition of fan trivia and synthesis. U-Mos' largest edit-wars himself and complains that there is no consensus for keeping our synthesis policy intact for articles within the Doctor Who wikiproject. When I discuss the matter there, his sole complaint is that he 'doesn't like it.'. I have found that the best method to interact with this editor is to ban him from my user-talk page and then ignore him in article discussion. This means I don't respond to his repeated snipes in article discussion and elsewhere. I would prefer if the user would find someone else to bother, because I am quite frankly getting a bit tired of his abuse. When I explain my point of view, he dismisses them with 'i don't like it'-style comments that fail to address the meat of the explanation asked for, sort of a 'refusing to get the point' thing.
I am not sure that DR would be helpful. My attempts to generate an RfC were perceived by the user as disruptive and trollishness. Again, while I do not mind trying DR, I think the user perceives it as something other than what it is, and won't even try. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm (talk · contribs) freaky act

Resolved

- - :I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this guy blank the main page. And he only got a level 1? But he did self-revert it. Am I in the right place? Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipediaclouds the brain". Hmmmm. Not good. Bstone (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. He was already blocked and unblocked over it. This thread is useless now. Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he claims his account was compromised. Eeps! Anyway, marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For review: indefinite block of Jagz (talk · contribs)

I'd like to submit one of my blocks for review. Jagz (talk · contribs) is, in my opinion, a long-term tendentious editor on the topic of race and intelligence. In a recent AN/I thread, I proposed a topic ban, with the goal of refocusing Jagz on constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. After quite a bit of discussion, the thread ended with Jagz agreeing not to edit the pages in question, and there was talk of placing him on probation for disruptiveness and incivility. Since then, he's continued to pursue the same grudges in different venues. Most recently, Mathsci (talk · contribs), one of Jagz's opponents, announced his retirement. Jagz chose this juncture to taunt Mathsci by vandalizing his userpage.

I view this as the final straw for this editor: the topic ban has had no effect; he continues to pursue his same old disruptive agenda in new venues; and he's stooped to vandalizing opposing editors' userspace to gloat about their departure from the project. I haven't seen anything positive originate from Jagz's account in a long time, and there's no reason to think things are getting any better - quite the reverse. I've blocked the account indefinitely for a long-term pattern of tendentious, disruptive editing capped off by personal attacks and vandalism of an opposing editor's userpage.

Jagz himself has not requested an unblock thus far, but Elonka (talk · contribs) raised the concern that this block was overly harsh. I agreed to disagree, but felt I should bring it here for further review and discussion. If there's a significant feeling in the community that Jagz should be unblocked, then any admin can feel free to do so. I would ask that if he is unblocked, he commit to contribute positively, and that a plan be in place to provide both clear behavioral guidelines and restrictions and/or mentoring/monitoring. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this editor at User talk:Cailil. My review of Jagz's recent contributions indicate a pattern of disruptiveness and polite trolling. I think the block was a good decision. I was unaware of how long this pattern had been going on, or else I might have done more than just blank Jagz's taunts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the previous discussion concluded with agreeing to a topic ban, a party that appears not to have joined the consensus was Jagz - who was violating said ban before the last edit was posted in the discussion. I fully support the indef block now, as not only does the editor seem unwilling to withdraw from the disputed area but also seems more than willing to argue his "case" by the same questionable methods (personal attacks, attempts to sanction "opponents", etc) as in the past. Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this chap a while back for 3RR. I wasn't impressed then, and have grown steadily less so as time has gone on. This is definitely one we're well quit of. Race and intelligence is quite contentious enough a topic without letting tendentious, edit-warring, and harassing SPAs such as Jagz go unrestrained. AGF has its limits: those he exceeded a long time ago. I also put the other single-purpose accounts operating in this area on notice to clean up their act, or else I shall personally ensure they follow in Jagz's footsteps, and that swiftly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at Leather Pride flag

this diff I've since reverted. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours, and will semi-protect the article if they begin IP hopping, but that will also leave you unable to edit the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, this appears to be a work of an editor who has been banned for similar edits, and an inability to understand that people cannot own a page on Wikipedia. See User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who is likely the same person as User:HenryLaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); both editors have made statements about not accepting alteration of the page. It's a low-level but chronic problem, and the 48 hour block is probably not going to have an impact on this topic. Horologium (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Vadalism from 69.230.165.27

There is an anonymous editor who seems to like making up characters in films, and changing the actors who played parts in random movies. Thought I should mention it. Mathewignash (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring (repeated blanking of sourced text) by User:Caspian blue at Seolleongtang

User:Caspian blue insists on repeatedly removing properly sourced etymological information regarding an alternate spelling, in Chinese characters/hanja (Sino-Korean characters) from the article Seolleongtang, (which is about a Korean soup), without participating at that article's discussion page. It is getting difficult to improve the article when the editor simply blanks this text over and over. The spelling is supported by over 20 thousand sources, as well as the etymology section of the Wiktionary entry, as provided by User:Visviva, who is active at both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The Wiktionary entry in question, which contains two legitimate sources bearing out the alternate spelling, may be found here. Instances of blanking (with accompanying edit summaries, but without discussion on the talk page) may be found at the article's revision history. Badagnani (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed blanking of sourced text continues. Badagnani (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not allow Badagnani to make allegations of edit-warring. He just got off his sixth suspension for that offense and has made false allegations before in an attempt to pass blame onto others (me, for instance). Caspian has been working on the Korean Cuisine article, with Chef Tanner, the article he was banned from on this last time. This appears to be his modus operandi, making allegations against another editor with whom he is waring with in an attempt to bolster his argument.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in several of those instances I had been reverting simple disruptive, WP:POINT blanking of text, and an admin who been solicited by another editor who did not like me decided to block--in the last two cases for instances where I had reverted simple blanking, and did not exceed three reverts. Kindly discuss the case at hand without ad hominem attacks, which I have never made against you. I am a prolific and (I hope) valued contributor, as are you, and attacks are not necessary; the repeated blanking of sourced text is never okay, no matter who is doing it, nor whether we either "like" or "don't like" that contributor. We're all here to build an encyclopedia together, and the blanking of another's properly sourced text really isn't okay. It was necessary to take this incident here because it has become apparent that reverting simple blanking (vandalism), up to three times per day, can and will be blocked by editors who are "out for" certain other contributors. If that is the case, it is clear that this incident report is needed to prevent such blanking in the future, by other means than constant reversion. Badagnani (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your block was so suitable and warranted in light of your hostile calling "blanking" to several people who removed your unhelpful and nothing but hidden question on articles. At least 4 people, me, Jeremy, Chris, Dforest are hurt by your uncivil attitude regarding your calling "blanking". Even though we all repeatedly suggested you to leave your question at talk pages or visit our user page, you would not listen to the suggestion at all. Besides, when I moved your hidden comments from articles to talk pages, you reverted and gave me absurd vandalism warnings so many times. Who is the most disruptive editor in this context?--Caspian blue (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly restrict your comments to the actual article at hand? Your continual and habitual blanking of other editors' editing comments (as seen, for example, in this edit) is not the issue here. Badagnani (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you habitually say and maliciously accuse people who suggest you to leave your comment at talk "blanking very important comment to the article" (your own hidden comment). Then you habitually throw vandalism warnings to the people including me. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone? However, as pointed out earlier, your summary removal of other editors' editing comments at the hotteok article, as seen in this edit, is not the subject of this incident report.

Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s disruptive original research campaign

Everyone can easily find that the above comment is a "blatant lie" from bad-faith if they read the history and talk page. I should be the one who would report his introducing original research campain. Of course, I left my opinion with citations several times before. I have undergone his introducing original research into Korean cuisine related articles over and over, such as seolleongtang, hotteok, jeongol. Every time, I have tried to "fix" incorrect info introduced by Badagnani as myself searching relevant information from Korean resources (English resources are limited on such subjects), his disruption does not stop. Visviva is neither Korean nor authoritive figure at all in Korean language. The entry at Wikidictionary was built up by Badagnani, not Visvisa. The page at Wikidictionary should be removed as well. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone and restrict your comments to the actual article at hand (numerous etymological sources for which have been provided at that article's discussion page)? Regarding User:Visviva, I believe him to be one of the most knowledgeable editors in Korean linguistics at both the English-language Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Regarding the deletion of the Wiktionary article, that article is properly sourced, and so would not merit deletion. Badagnani (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the subject of this incident report is the article Seolleongtang, I note that of the three articles you mention above, I began two of them (seolleongtang and jeongol). Badagnani (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At hotteok article, you wrote original research on varieties of hotteok but the citation that I provided does not have any information that you wrote. Besides, you do not read Korean, and bave't been to Korea, and eateb the dish, and you introduced the very wrong information. Even you push me to find sources for your original research, that case also could be found at Korean barbecue. I'm not your tutor and your behaviors toward me are more than disruptive. --00:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone (vis-a-vis the last sentence of your comment)? The hotteok article is not the subject of this incident report; however, it is clear from an examination of your blanking of my editing comments, as seen in this edit, that I had made several targeted comments regarding the wording and subject matter of the article, with the eventual goal of clarifying those passages through further research (in both the Korean and English languages), and consequently improving the article. You chose to simply blank them, in a WP:POINT manner. It would be helpful if you would address the actual article at hand, however. Badagnani (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are all you added to the page to back up your claim, but can these bare google returns without confirmations be inline text resource? Therefore, I removed it per WP:V, WP:RM and you restored it as insisting that they're all properly cited source.

1. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%E9%9B%AA%E6%BF%83%E6%B9%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_ko&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
2. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%E9%9B%AA%E6%BF%83%E6%B9%AF&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=lang_zh-TW&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

I've cleaned up your original research on so many articles such as Korean noodles, but I have no obligation to search information that you incorrectly wrote without any reliable sources.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources were and are provided; there are quite a few that you neglect to present here, but they may be found at Talk:Seolleongtang for others to see. The proper course of action in light of so many thousands of Google hits, as mentioned just above, would have been to place a "fact" tag and to have discussed at the article's talk page before engaging in repeated blanking of the entire text (which had already been sourced). Now that there are sources, please restore the text about the Chinese use of the name 雪濃湯, as seen at the Chinese Wikipedia article about this food, which you removed earlier today without first placing a "fact" tag or discussing at the article's discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you only confirm people that the Chinese Wikipedia has no citation. That may be simply translated from another wikipedia, such as English Wiki as many other language wikipedians do. The seolleongtang article was created by you with the incorrect spelling. That is good to know. Unless you read every possible articles with credibility and confirm whether your claim is right, the hit number is useless. Most of them say in Korean, the usuage is FALSE and you keep insisting on including your original research.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly moderate your tone (use of all capital letters)? The sources were and are provided--over 20 thousand of them, with several of the most authoritative at Talk:Seolleongtang. We do include alternate names for foods at WP, some of which are etymologically "incorrect" yet in demonstrably wide usage. The chaise longue article, for example, presents the quite incorrect but widely used English misspelling "chaise lounge" in its text. That, however, is not the question; the question is the incident of User:Caspian blue's tendency to blank text rather than first discuss, go over the sources in detail in a collaborative, collegial manner at "Discussion," add "fact" tags when no sources are provided, etc. It really should be possible for us to work together in a collegial manner, without resorting to name-calling and denigration of another editor's knowledge or qualifications, as I see just above. Badagnani (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last search was barely done after I removed your Zh.Wikipedia.org link and suggested you to find sources. The spelling is not yet confirmed whether it is widely used in Chinese speaking. Unless confirmation procedure, hit-number is no use. Your tendency of introducing original research to articles and giving absurd warning as to "blanking" by your own definition which none agrees. The report is nothing but from very malicious intention. I have so many opportunities to him to reconsider his disruptive and unhelpful behaviors, and he keep doing such so blocked 2 days ago. I left so many opinion at talk page, and I have no patience on your disruption. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The 20 thousand Chinese-language Google hits for the term and the link to the Chinese-language Wikipedia article about the soup were already included as sources when you chose to blank the text entirely and repeatedly, without first adding a "fact" tag nor contributing at "Discussion." It is this pattern that is under scrutiny here. A half dozen reputable sources in the Chinese language are provided at Talk:Seolleongtang (including the actual Chinese-language Wikipedia article on this soup), demonstrating that the term is used in Chinese, yet User:Caspian blue still blanked the text entirely and repeatedly, and apparently refuses to restore it. This tendency is inherently disruptive, not the restoration of properly sourced text, nor the preparation of an incident report of such blanking. Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You report this with very insulting title against me, and why did you alter the subtitle? That is inappropriate. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Badagnani should learn what his original research and false allegation would result in as his reward. (he just got off from his block and then he is the one who initiated edit wars without any reliable source. I'm tired of his behaviors. Another example is At WP:CFD/Log/2008_April_12#Seasonal_cuisine, even though the consensus reached to remove seasonal cuisine, User:Badagnani inserted too broad and abusrd category such as to hotteok [103][104][105][106][107][108] --01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the actual subject of this incident report is User:Caspian blue's choice to blank sourced text from the Seolleongtang article in a repeated manner, without first using a "fact" tag or discussing in a calm, collegial manner at the article's Talk page, but instead engaging in unending blanking of the entire text, along with sources. Although, as already mentioned three times above, hotteok is not the subject of this incident report, I did believe that the "Winter cuisine" category was appropriate, as the article states that this food "is usually eaten during the winter season." Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the mention irrelevant? This section is about your habitual original research campaign and disruptive behaviors such as giving absurd vandalism warnings to people, not only about Seolleongtang. Your insistences and blatant disregard toward consensus are always splendid, notable example is Talk:Prunus_mume#Discussione too. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "雪濃" The Standard Korean Dictionary (한글국어대사전) does not include any hanja 雪濃 in the explanation of Seolleongtang(설렁탕). So, it is removed. It is wrong explanation that Seolleongtang(설렁탕) can be written as 雪濃湯. (by an anon) See [4] Badagnani (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) http://krdic.naver.com/detail.nhn?docid=21209600 What some of people misspell the food with the wrong hanja does not justify "wrong information" to exist in this encyclopedia. --Appletrees (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Alternate spellings should be given (and their origin and use explained) in the article rather than blanked. Badagnani (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 雪濃 is NOT an alternate spelling according to KOREAN DIONCTIONARIES except the wikidictionary created by you. --Appletrees (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) There are over 9 thousand hits. Someone, or some nine thousand of them, are using this spelling. It's important to explain who is using this spelling, and why. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Can you tell me what is this?

Badagnani's habitual misrepresentation come up again, but that is not even surprising. He attacked me with comments that I did not say to him. He selected comment for his own sake and tries to look me to have been uncooperative on discussion, which never happened to me. Who is telling unthruth/ I think administrative action should be taken upon his malicious report and his behaviors to here. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; however, the issue at hand is User:Caspian blue's choice to blank text entirely first, then discuss later (and, then, only after an incident report having been submitted), as seen in the edit history of Seolleongtang. The above is more appropriate for the discussion page of that article. What needs to be resolved is User:Caspian blue's failure to edit in a collegial, deliberative manner that involves placing "fact" tags and making use of "Discussion" first, and blanking sourced text as a last resort. Is it possible to mandate that WP contributors edit in a collegial manner? I am not certain, but I do believe that we should not have to do so; we should do so as a matter of course.

Regarding the alternate name, we do provide widely used alternate names even when they are "wrong," such as the common misspelling at Chaise longue. 20 thousand Google hits in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, and the actual Chinese-language Wikipedia article for this soup, had already been provided before the text was blanked entirely and repeatedly by User:Caspian blue. Badagnani (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs) makes Wiki policy to unwritten and his own version approved by none. Badagnani (talk · contribs) created and edited the article in question on 2005 with no citation for the first one month and introduce false spelling and information until others fix and added citations[109], but he has not tried to do such at all. Introducing wrong information over 3 years is nothing but harm and laziness. I think Badagnani (talk · contribs) should not allow to edi Korean cuisine articles, given by all his disruptive behaviors. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked approximately nine times to moderate your tone, but the above comment is highly inflammatory and appears to represent a WP:TROLL. I will ask for a tenth time: please moderate your tone. My actual record, now that it is I who am being put on the defensive by the editor whose blanking is the actual subject of this incident report, is that I have created and improved dozens of Korean cuisine articles. Why does it seem necessary for you to denigrate another contributor's expertise in such an inflammatory manner? Is this an attitude that reflects well on our project? Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert emergency

Resolved

 – But the article needs a close eye kept on it - Alex Muller 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an obscene image on the Tim Russert page. I imagine it's from a compromised template, but I can't go poking around looking for it at the present time. Somebody please fix it, immediately? Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not there now. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was made to Template:Infobox journalist, so if you want to watchlist it then feel free to do so. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user:66.229.101.36

Resolved

 – IP has been blocked for two weeks by an admin. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user:66.229.101.36 keeps posting that Maureen Orth wife of Tim Russert is dead. If he's right i owe an appology, but if not the ip needs a block for repeated vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russrt is deceasedad, and i think that you owe user:66.229.101.36 an apology. heres a source if you need it 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I know Tim Russert is deceased, the ip says his wife is dead too, haven't seen that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like the IP's been blocked, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A two week block was given to the IP. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Requesting administrative intervention here:

A couple of hours ago, Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) tagged FICT as "rejected". I undid this, noting discussion was ongoing and it can't be rejected because it had been accepted in the past. See also: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Failed proposal. A further look into it revealed that the tagging may have been partisan due to his vote to reject the new guideline. Both me and Avruch (talk · contribs) asked him to stop edit warring, which he did. However, he then canvassed five editors [110][111][112][113][114] with a rather uncivil message, and when I asked him to stop, he replied "Up yours, buddy". I'm not sure what intervention is exactly needed, but I feel as if I've done all I can and it's not deterring him. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He just needs to calm down. Tagging it as anything other than what it is right now is not crucial, and it can wait through a discussion. I don't know the point of view attached to the people he notified, but it wasn't exactly a neutrally worded notification. Time to just take a little break and come back with some perspective and distance. Avruch^T * ^ER 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)