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

Ramu50 yet again

• Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Uninvolved_admin_on_Template:Databases_.28Ramu50_again.29
• Discussion on my Talk page: User_talk:SheffieldSteel#new_ramu50_disruption.2C_alas. (I've collapsed three threads into one for ease of reading)

A couple of editors are still complaining about this editor's actions (on my Talk page, presumably because at the close of the last ANI thread I suggested a block might be in order). After the first complaint, I tried to provide Ramu50 with some guidance about how we work - or how we should - but results have not been very positive. Ramu50 expressed willingness to change, but continued to make personal attacks against me, apparently without realising it. That was not a problem for me, but seems to be indicative of a problem recognising or controlling disruptive contributions. Meanwhile, another complaint has been made.

I'm not quite out of ideas, but "good cop" doesn't seem to be working out, and that just leaves one other plan... so if anyone else would like to try to help, that would be most appreciated. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Ramu50 about choosing a mentor after you've suggested it in the previous AN/I thread. So far no reply. VG ☎ 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I still AGF about his intentions, but he's a bull in a china shop. He's been warned including multiple final warnings, he's acknowledged those by deleting most of them, and has continued in the same vein yesterday and today with bulk questionable template edits.

Some editors are too disruptive for the project without being hostile or having bad intent. Ramu has crossed the threshold. I recommend a 24 hr block and another attempt to get him to discuss proposed changes on template talk pages before he executes any. We should continue to try and work with him, but the carrot has failed. Time for stick. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree with George's assessment. VG ☎ 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that AGF is one of the fundamental principles here, but after a few weeks of dealing with his edit wars, I now don't think he's really contributing. Raysonho (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate uninvolved admin block

There is another run of highly questionable template edits and article edits in progress. Uninvolved admin review and block requested. Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you could explain and provide diffs, George. I see the deletion at Template:Parallel computing and its talk page. Is that the issue you have in mind? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This series of edits at Template:Nvidia - serious structural and content changes after repeated requests on his talk page and template talk pages to not make such changes to templates without discussing them.

this diff at Template talk:Parallel computing in which he claims that my complaints about his editing are mental problems.

This exchange on his talk page.

This is a continuation of extensive disruptive editing and multiple warnings (many now deleted off his talk pages). See above for most recent ANI thread now archived, discussion on another admin's talk page that preceded this, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And tell me why should I respect you at all it if your tone of talk page is constantly wanting to pose a personal attack. You are not involved in the other template, so may I ask you are you asking for trouble by making matter worse instead of making it better. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the lead on this one. I saw some of his edits on the parallel computing template and responded there (essentially echoing George's own comments that Ramu clearly doesn't know what he's talking about) but otherwise I haven't see this guy before today. Raul654 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we only do preventative blocks and he seems to have stopped. He's now working on User:Ramu50/Linux Distributions template in his userspace so let's see and wait. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He does still restore to his own version of Template:Nvidia though, and he simply ignored the discussion thread in talk page. --203.218.101.103 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template: Nvidia when I expand it, it was evident that most people didn't seem to have a problem with the expansion, the problem didn't start until recently around October 20 when reverting and changes started. I try to include and consolidate the links (the method was try to remove brand names or coporation names). I have use that method on a lot of list articles and most people didn't seem to have a problem with it, so don't even try to pull that crap up. Because the fact Ricky81682 reverts and anyone who comes in and constantly wanting me to be block should be suspeneded, because their reverts is against consenus while my contributions isn't. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice that, nobody complained != your view represent the consensus among Wikipedians, because there are NO discussions and interactions among Wikipedians which was aiming for any consensus. Period. --218.103.245.88 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

Since most (but not all) of the grief he caused was a result of warring over templates, further disruption can perhaps be avoided by requiring Ramu50 to obtain consensus on the talk page before editing any template. Failure to do so should result in a short block (12 hrs?) by any admin. I know this is against WP:BOLD, but in this case the drain of manpower required to fix the content problems created by Ramu50 needs to weighted against his editing privileges. I've counted at least 10 users that had to intervene on various articles and templates he edited, and many of them had to put up with Ramu50's (sometimes accidental) incivility for their troubles. Ramu50 seems to be more composed when the discussion takes place before the reverts start. VG ☎ 08:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the WP:DRAMA this user has been creating, would support a restriction.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support a restriction of that sort but I'm not sure if his mainspace edits are much better. He just seems set on ignoring all advice on how to conduct himself. I'm really not appreciative of slapping a merge tag under "OR" removal. I'm warning him of this discussion and frankly if he continues editing in this manner without discussing it, I'm blocking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

urgh

This guy threatened me with legal action over a tag I placed on an article in JULY. Jtrainor (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't, he said that your claim of copyright violation, without proof of such, violates the law. Sounds like a content dispute that you should take to that specific page, 3tera - and maybe address the question he raised. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You violated the law yourself of false accusation without any evidence, this can be considered a bias action on certain corporation. Accusing someone of copyright infringement with no evidence is against the law. I suppose you didn't learn from society that is the case. Maybe you should look at when MSI accuse Asus EPU was a fake and MSI got sued. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, really, it was a "business-stub" tag. Ramu50 somehow thought it was a copyvio tag. I've restored it. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He actually placed a placed a copyright template on there, I don't know why it is not displaying it properly. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What you removed was a business stub. Can you find a diff that shows something other than a business stub? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked him for a week. After edit warring at Template:Nvidia, I've had enough when he claimed consensus even after being told even in this ANI section not to mess around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabartus

Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, to be best of my knowledge has a long record as nothing other than a good and productive contributor, seems to be editing-angry today. He made this rather daft attack on another editor ("I'm gonna barf... read a fucking map idiot") and my (hopefully rather sedate) attempts to persuade him that such attacks aren't acceptable seem only to have inflamed him, leading to more attacks and a rather worrying threat ("Are you looking for a fight"). So I'm clearly not helping, and I'm going to WP:DISENGAGE. Perhaps someone else can talk him down. I'm not aware, incidentally, that Fabartus and I have had any substantive prior dealings or are in any kind of dispute. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spoiled their block log with a 24 hour enforced break. Review welcome, but previous good tenure does not mean you get a few free digs IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I was trying to write up an even-handed "how to resolve this" post on their Talk, but events overtook me. Fabartus has retired in response to LHvU's block notice. I'm saying nothing more, due to my boundless politeness which I am sure you are all familiar with :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

... And another good user driven away by idiotically heavy handed admin intervention. Fuck the civility police, fuck them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the rare occasions where I disagree with LHvU. The user was letting off steam a little. Just a very little. We have people issuing fucking death threats who we don't block, but one use of the word "fucking" - albeit in mainspace where it's not wanted - and an angry response to the patronising dressing-down issued because of it and we block?? Cheeses H Christ. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan

I think futperf is right here. LessHeard is a great admin, but I must take exception to this block. It seems out of proportion with the event. When a longterm contributor starts to spout off at the mouth, the best thing to do is ignore them. Its not like he was seeking out people to be incivil to, every comment he made was in response to comments by others. He didn't go on a rampage against other people, he responded on his own talk page and others kept poking and prodding him. If we just let Fabartus have the last word, I fully believe that he would not have continued the incivility. This seems like it didn't warrent a block in this case. There are clearly times when civility blocks ARE warrented, such as when a person is actively picking fights with other people, or going around to various places and actively attacking other editors. This was not that sort of case... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If my opinion carries any weight, I also disagree with the block. A stern personalised warning would probably have resolved the whole thing. A good editor pushed away from a well-meaning charitable cause... DendodgeTalk^Contribs 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you show me where in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it says "If you're letting off steam, its okay to call other users names and insult them?" I was just reading it, but sometimes I can miss things like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock and hope Fabartus will get over it. By the way, just for the record, the damage about which Fabartus was complaining had come from this edit [1], from a troll who has in the meantime been blocked for multiple forms of disruptive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well... Two wrongs a right do not make, but I did not see why a good faith editor like Finlay McWalter - with a contrib history that starts in 2003 - should be subjected to such incivility, when they were acting in good faith. I was also heading to the page to issue a "now steady on, old chap" type warning, but I was quite shocked to read what I did. Trolls and vandals who issue death threats are born to be ignored, but when a long time contributor blasts off against a neutral third party...? Like I said, my permission is not required for the unblock. If they come back, I will apologise for my actions if needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  I for one support the block. This garbage of "oh he's a good editor, let him abuse other editors and policies" is a joke. If I don't get my way I'll take my ball and go home. So not only is he violating policy and treating other editors badly, when he gets called on it he acts like a child and leaves rather than accepting his punishment for his behaviour and moving on like an adult. Unblocking him only enables him to feel that kind of treatment of other editors is acceptable.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  We don't block to punish. In fact, we shouldn't seek to punish here at all. And of course blocking someone who is already inflamed will cause them to leave/detonate: that's one of the many reasons we don't issue cool-down blocks any more. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  If someone is told to read civil and npa and responds with uncivil behavour and insults that's not punitive, its preventative. If there is no recourse for treating other editors badly, civil and npa have no meaning and frankly that drives away more editors than keeping the people who want to be rude are worth. Not blocking those who obviously violate policies for such garbage reasons as "he's been a good editor" leads to animosity from those who have been wronged, or did you forget about those people?--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  You were the one to use the word "punishment". So you're now saying that such blocks are not punishment after all? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Don't try and ignore the real question. You're arguing semantics to duck the issue here. Are you saying that people who get insulted and abused are worth less to this project than those who do the abusing and we shouldn't block them for violating policy because it might make them leave? Because your position here can't be seen as anything less. I've seen more than one editor fed-up at the coddling of editors who can't seem to express themselves in a manner that is compatible with a community. The individual in question left a clearly inappropriate note (in article space no less, commented out or otherwise), and when asked to play nice responded with further and obvious hostility. He has been here long enough to know better. Frankly I see long term service as more an indicator that if you do something inappropriate and are called on it, you should know better and correct it right away. This editor didn't get it and was given a much stronger message to enforce it. He chose to instead to take his ball and go home. Someone else came along and unblocked him which instead reinforces the idea that there is some imaginary point system in play where you can trade x months of service and x good edits to get away with bad behaviour, or it reinforces the idea that if you don't get your way, threaten to leave and someone will back you up and screw the person, or people who were obviously attacked. If Finlay McWalter threatens to leave because he was unblocked does that mean he gets blocked again?--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  So you do want blocks used as punishment? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  So you want to chase users away from the project who have done nothing wrong and hang on to users who have shone a disposition for insulting and abusing other users? See I can put words in your mouth as well. Do you have some actual point to make in defense of the block removal? I've asked you a question twice about your stance on this and you're ducking the issue which makes me believe that yes you do support chasing away potentially good users based on some imaginary bartering system for good contributions. If this was a new user you'd never jump to his defense and argue for an unblock. He continued the bad behaviour after being asked nice to cut it out and was blocked to prevent further hostility and abuse of other users. Its exactly how block is supposed to work. It also reinforces the message that this behaviour is not acceptable in a community. Undoing that block completely destroys that message.--Crossmr (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  We both seem talented at avoiding questions, don't we? Except that the question you are posing to me is effectively "have you stopped beating your wife?", whilst the question I'm asking you is a simple yes-or-no: do you want blocks to be used as punishment? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Its a moot question, I don't view the block as punishment in this case. Had he been blocked without the second incident of hostility, I would have viewed it as punishment. So no, I don't want blocks to be used as punishment. So I've spelled it nice and clear, yet you've tried once again to skirt the issue. You support not "chasing away" good users by blocking them for civility violations (which to me seems a contradiction) but you've made no statement as to how you will address the users who were the target of those violations and what happens when they start leaving because people are treating them like crap over and over and no one does anything.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Crossmr, Fabartus wasn't "asked nice to cut it out". He had an admin jumping at him out of nowhere with a heavy-handed, haughtily worded blocking threat. Followed up with another, even more bluntly worded one. Fabartus feeling that it looked as if Finlay was just "looking for a fight" was quite understandable; that was indeed what it came across as. Finlay was blowing up a totally trivial little thing into a blocking matter for no reason at all. And a second admin didn't even bother to talk but blocked right away, with a block message that came across as quite patronizing and sarcastic. Even if someone felt Fabartus' initial behaviour was in need of intervention (which I find doubtful, as his "insults" were directed at an unknown vandal who was long gone from the project), this is simply not how it ought to be done. This incident, just like other recent ones, just goes to show why policing civility with blocking threats simply doesn't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  By his own admission he is not a child. By his own admission he should be old enough to know better. If someone is "getting all over him" he should be old enough to know enough to walk away and move on. This isn't his first day on wikipedia and he should be overly familiar with all the various policies that apply to conduct on this encyclopedia. I asked it above and I'll ask it again, where in civil and npa does it state that if someone is mean to you first you can retaliate? That doesn't build a community. That builds an environment where users slowly dig away at each other and build animosity. The problem has nothing to do with civility policy or blocks. It has to do with admins who unblock users who shouldn't be unblocked. It enables their behaviour and other users see it and it further enables them. Stop blaming the wording for people's behaviour. No one goes to their home and holds a gun to their head and makes them act how they act. They choose how they act and if they're not choosing how they act and are completely at the whim of their emotions and unable to control their behaviour then they probably shouldn't be here as it doesn't seem to be the kind of individual who would be a productive member of a diverse community.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  Fut.Perf., from what you are saying I am concerned that you have not fully acquainted yourself with the events immediately prior to my block; I have not concerned myself with whatever incident Fabartus had with some troll, but the manner of response to a neutrally worded warning from a long established editor. As the incident itself was over a week prior to the friendly (i.e. personal message rather than template) warning/advice from Finlay McWalter it may have been expected that any response should have been considered - even if Fabartus disagreed; instead there was a stream of personal invective (and inaccurate at that, Fabartus has been editing since 2005 but Finlay McWalter since 2003) and Fabartus' attitude was both condenscending and belligerent ("looking for a fight" is only a question to be asked if you are prepared to accept any answer). I also saw no reason why someone's life experience should form any basis to enable the type of response. Finlay McWalter commented and acted reasonably, and was dismayed enough at the response to bring it here.

My consideration was that any further attempt to comment/advise/warn would have incurred the same response, and instead I used a block to demonstrate that the behaviour was inappropriate - with a comment that was in respect to the points raised by Fabartus. I concede that it was not done gently, but my view was (and still is) that there would have been a block by the end of the matter if that was the attitude. The fact the editor promptly left the project, although regrettable, is some indication that this was never going to be a situation that was going to end in a group hug.

Naturally, you were not to know of how I reached my decision (not without asking, anyhow) but I hope this sheds some light on why I acted as I did. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to the first issue you raise: yes, I do believe I understand the situation. But I'm now not quite sure about how you understand it: an "incident itself [...] over a week prior" to yesterday? What incident would that have been? As far as I can see, what happened was the following: Over a month ago, a vandal-troll arbitrarily added dozens of spurious fact-tags to the article [2]. Fabartus, happening across the article only yesterday, without ever having interacted with that troll before for all I know, cleared away some of the tags, unnecessarily commenting them out with some rather sharp comments instead of just deleting them. These comments were apparently directed at nobody in particular; in fact I see no evidence Fabartus even knew or cared who had added those tags, or that anybody actually felt attacked by his remarks. Finlay reverted him, without an explanation, reinserting painfully unnecesary "fact" tags on statements such as that Alaska borders the Arctic Ocean (!) [3]. Finlay then went to Fabartus' talk page and posted what I definitely do not see as a "friendly" or "neutral" message, but as a quite unnecessarily patronising threat, essentially stirring up an issue out of nothing. Fabartus reacted with a rebuke (somewhat arrogantly worded but justified in the essence, with invectives that were directed not at Finlay but at the hit-and-run troll from last month [4]). Matters escalated from there.

No offense against you personally, but still, Finlay ought not to have created this issue (the obvious constructive thing for him to do would have been to simply remove the offending HTML commentary together with the nonsensical tags, and maybe put a lighthearted admonition in the edit summary if he felt one necessary.) And you ought not to have escalated it further with your block, given that Finlay had already done the reasonable thing and withdrawn from the situation (which could have spelled the end of it.)

By the way, I apologise for my own (admittedly quite deliberately POINT-y) use of invective yesterday. Given the climate in some discussions I'm probably lucky I wasn't immediately blocked myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep trying to defend him by claiming others made him do it. Someone worded it meanly first, someone used too strong language, etc. Last I checked those aren't valid reasons to lose your mind. There is no valid reason to lose your mind and insult other users around here (even though some people like to all gather round and give an identified sock/vandal/etc a good ribbing on the way out the door). Once again no one forced him to react the way he did. He's an adult and should be in control of his own behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think no-one is exempt from criticism here, but at the same time no-one's actions were all that unreasonable. Finlay could have been more diplomatic, but was clearly acting in the best interests of the project. I wish I'd written my comment to Talk:Fabartus faster than I did, but then I didn't want to get the wording wrong and inadvertently inflame the situation. Fabartus was rather cantankerous throughout, but felt justified in responding strongly to what he felt were misplaced tags (and misplaced criticism). LHvU could have worded the block notice in a less inflammatory way, but it needed to be said that Fabartus does not have carte blanche to be incivil whenever he feels justified - which is what his posts implied he would do going forward. With that in mind, there is a good case to be made that the block was preventative in nature, and seen in that light FP's unblock could be criticised too, although clearly it was meant to defuse tension and prevent a long-term contributor from leaving. Hopefully we can all learn something from this and hopefully no group hug will be necessary. ew.. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my word! Look folks. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. If some of you choose to call and consider that as uncivil, I frankly, feel sorry for your pathetic lack of experience in the real world. If some of you PC types don't like it, accept at least I spent thirty years in uniform making sure you'd have that right, and extend the same right to put the foot in my mouth as the rest of us in the US enjoy. Fut.Perf has a pretty clear read on what happened. Finlay chose to throw his weight around for no good reason... at least if you accept the idea that someone changes based on stimulus and feedback... what he thought he was going to accomplish is beyond me. Those inline comments are AND WERE intended to be read by the paperhanging SOB that didn't think, nor leave a comment to his problems therein tagged. That's a time waste to others going forward, and chasing down just who is being lazy and inconsiderate would be a further waste of time. The only thing that could come of that would be confrontational, ala Finlay McWalter. Note I'd never even been to that article before yesterday, and was merely adding one cite on related geology. MY "are you looking for a fight" was in fact an attempt at DISENGAGING... or engaging Finlay to realize he was pissing up a stick... and building a tempest in a teapot. LessHeard vanU seems to think his/her social beliefs are canon. So be it. I'd really stopped regular editing over all the nits being picked around here back in last spring. The liberals are in charge, and like all liberals think they have the holy writ and are glad to listen to your dissent so long as you agree that their contrived consensus is the way it's gonna go. Looks to be a bad time to be a self-reliant free thinker. Or a time to call spades, spades. Thanks to those supporting free speech above. // FrankB 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You go on about time wasting, and yet you chose to create drama which is notorious for time wasting on wikipedia. You could have chosen to behave in an appropriate manner, reverting with a neutral edit summary and without the inline comments and all would have been said and done. You created the engagement and the situation with your behaviour, but please continue to blame others. Future perfect does have a good read on the situation, his read on the situation is that apparently finlay and others were in your home forcing you to type what you did and create the situation that was born of your behaviour. If you reserve the right to call a spade a spade, then I suppose I can do the same. You have a very obvious chip on your shoulder and frankly you should get over it. There are over 6 billion people on the planet you didn't wear a uniform for and plenty of them edit this encyclopedia. Its immaterial and doesn't give you license to piss on other users. If you feel someone acted out of turn then address that with proper discourse. Communities don't work if people carry around their baggage like that and spew it all over others when they have a disagreement.--Crossmr (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably time to let this thread die, folks. Block expired, no admin action required, feedback provided to blocker and blockee. This is turning into a typical unhelpful ANI snipe-fest; can we nip that in the bud please? Just this once? --barneca (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right. Lets let the issue of blocks for civility remain unresolved yet again so administrators can continue to block and unblock people, and people who are the recipients of the offender's behaviour can continue to leave the project because its apparently more important to make sure we don't upset people who abuse other editors than those who get abused.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Docsavage20 linking to copyrighted video on YouTube

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The consensus is that, absent reliable secondary sources, a YouTube video is not acceptable as a source for a BLP claim that's at odds with Trebek's public image (per WP:REDFLAG etc etc). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Docsavage20 (talk · contribs) is insisting that he is entitled to link to YouTube video of outtakes from Jeopardy! on Alex Trebek (obviously copyrighted). I have tried to explain that the burden of proof is on him that the video is not a copyright violation, per WP:ELNEVER. Rather than edit war, I thought I'd let an admin express an opinion and, if necessary, discuss with Docsavage20. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be copyrighted but Ward3001 implies it's "obvious" it's on YouTube inappropriately, apparently not being familiar with the concept of Fair Use. This was of course after he made the initial assertion that Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits linking to YouTube which it does not. He claims it's in violation of copyright, the burden is on him to prove it, not upon me to prove a negative. This video has been edited in the manner of a parody, and is seen on multiple sites on the 'net. I consider it a reasonable assumption that both Trebek and the company the video originated from are aware of its existence, yet have not taken action to have it removed via DMCA.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarify a misstatement: I did not assert that YouTube links are prohibited in general, just in this case. I'll trust an admin's judgment about Fair Use. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Misstatement my foot, you most certainly did state specifically that "it doesn't matter if it's notable, you can't link to YouTube, that's policy" or words extremely close to that.Docsavage20 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And I said it on Talk:Alex Trebek, not on a policy talk page. But all of that is beside the point. This is not about me, Docsavage20, it's about getting an admin's opinion about the YouTube link. Ward3001 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I have to challenge your belief that youtube posting can be assumed to be copyright compliant. Youtube contains an unimaginable wealth of copyright violations. Try searching for any popular song or television show, and you will find complete copies as well as clips that are only "fair use" in a pirate's wildest fantasies. Regardless, the copyright status of this video is not nearly as relevant as the fact that it's inclusion is a gross violation of the neutral point of view. You don't get to assemble a new viewpoint from primary material and then include it on an article (see original research). And if someone else has done it, you don't get include it and then cite him for it (undue weight and reliable sources). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So because you've concluded that there are copyright violations on YouTube, it nullifies the equally valid notion of Fair Use. As far as a neutral point of view, there could be nothing more "neutral" than actual video of the man swearing on camera. I made a statement of fact. He can be seen swearing profusely and repeatedly on camera. There's no opinion to it - there he is doing it. Unless of course you subscribe to the doctored video silliness. It's not a reach to state it's a different side of him than you see on the show.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the real concern here is BLP. A YouTube video with unknown source is not sufficient to say that someone "can be seen repeatedly using profanity - primarily the F-word - in unaired footage from a taping of a Jeopardy promo". If it were not about a living person, and a source was known, the correct action would often be to simply remove the link but keep the citation and NPOV if necessary, but for someone living we need something more reliable that shows that it's an important aspect of his personality. --NE2 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with NE2: there are two issues here: whether the source satisfies the contributory copyright infringement clause of WP:COPYRIGHT and whether it satisfies WP:RS. The 'fair use' argument is intriguing, but before delving into that too deeply the other side of the matter is whether it satisfies the reliable sources guideline. Clearly this doesn't because we have no way of knowing whether the clips were edited or not. The video is extremely poor, but the sound quality is high--which raises my eyebrow. And his lip movements may not match his words. Extremely dubious, not citable. Durova^Charge! 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The source isn't unknown. It's a promo for Jeopardy. Do you think someone built a replica of the Jeopardy set, and got a lookalike and soundalike for Trebek, and/or used a bogus voiceover without getting sued? That's ludicrous. This is exactly the opposite rationale I've seen of pissing contests over claims of events regarding celebs where some Wiki admin pontificates that it's "hearsay", and not verified. You can see and hear it happening - it's as verified as it's going to get. Do you consider a recounting of an event more solid proof than seeing and hearing it for yourself? Assuming one is interested in Trebek to begin with, it's clearly an important aspect of his personality inasmuch as you're seeing him when he doesn't think it's going to be aired. I.e. a more complete picture of what he's really like. Docsavage20 (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, source is unknown. It's some unknown person's shot of a TV screen, which may or may not have been processed through audio editing with an Alex Trebec impersonation. If you could find this on the show's own website, that would be citable. Somehow I rather doubt that's likely. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova - the video portion always degrades more rapidly than the audio in copied video. And YouTube's encoders make any degradation even worse, particularly if the YouTube user isn't versed in preparing video for YouTube. Not all source codecs get through YouTube's encoders equally. And again, the notion that someone faked Trebek's voice and didn't get sued is preposterous. You folks are grasping at straws.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone sued Michael Jordan for looking like him. Preposterous things happen in the world. The thing is, without a source, we can't prove/say anything. We cannot place copyright violations and unreliable sources in the balance of what we judge is "preposterous". Biographies of living people are places where it is especially vital to follow policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line--and this is by no means the first time that Wikipedia has taken on this type of question--is that this site has no reliable means of knowing whether that is a faithful reproduction of the clips or an edited and altered one. It would not be citable at any article, and at a BLP shouldn't even be cause for debate. If that isn't a good enough answer, WP:BLPN and WP:RSN are thataway. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You also seem from your comments on the Trebek talk that you are attempting synthesis from the video. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is WP:OR. And to claim fair use is questionable per L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Plus it's a problem per WP:BLP. That's three solid reasons not to link it. If it's the subject of independent media coverage, then we can say that, and link to the media coverage. If it's not, then we should not blaze the trail in publicising it. Guy (Help!) 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure L.A. Times v. Free Republic is relevant here, since it was about the full text of articles, and this is about excerpts. However, if these are outtakes, never published by the owner of the material, there may be other issues clouding the picture. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you see original research factoring in here? And your WP:BLP is fuzzy to me. The only way to say it isn't true and accurate is to go with the "doctored video without getting sued" theory. Btw, since you're citing case law, are you an attorney?Docsavage20 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova - it shouldn't be cause for debate because you say so? I move that the photo of Trebek be removed because we have no reliable way of determing that it's the real Alex Trebek and not some look-alike. A still photo is far easier to fake than a video. Your own senses and judgement aren't sufficient. In fact, all photos should be removed from Wikipedia on the same basis.Docsavage20 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest here that the admins just agree on a "No" answer, and this be closed? From Docsavage20's comments it doesn't seem as if he understands, or is willing to. I've seen this sitiation on ANI numerous times, and it often ends in a refusal to get the point. Dayewalker (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and answer the point as to why an unverified photo that's supposedly of the person in question can be used? How do you have any more basis to believe it's really him than you do of the video?Docsavage20 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)That's a good example of what I'm talking about, Ds20. Comparing a picture that serves as a visual aid to a Youtube video that you're trying to say establishes something about a person is just flat-out silly. Please stop, refusal to get the point usually ends badly. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm comparing one of the rationales that has been suggested that makes the video "suspect", being applied completely capriciously. What I note is exactly why I see people scoff at Wikipedia - this circus of rationalizatons - one person says it's not notable, another says well...it may be notable but it's not verifiable. Another says well, it's verifiable but you're not allowed to use the source of verification. Well, except it's not true that you're not allowed to, they just pulled an inaccurate statement of "policy" out of their backside because it fits their agenda. Well except...It boggles the mind that references to text material solely from the internet are regarded as "valid" with not nearly the scrutiny applied in this case to actual video of an event occurring.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If my count is correct, we already having two admins expressing opposition to the link, not to mention the non-admins. That's enough for me to call it a "No". Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The logical flaw in the argument is that a still photo merely serves as a decoration - so if it really were Trebek, or somebody disguised as Trebek, in some sense it wouldn't really matter - unless it was being used to "prove" something, in which case the photo itself might not be sufficient - it would required citation that it depicts what it is alleged to depict. Same with the video. If the clip was simply Trebek reading an answer from the board, it would serve only as a "visual aid". But if it's a genuine video of Trebek speaking in the vernacular of the peasantry, you would think there would be legitimate commentary on it. But all I'm seeing in Google is blogs, and that suggests it's either a fake or of no notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic astounds me - except for the fact that we're in Wikipedia world. The fact that it's being discussed on multiple blogs as well as the video being linked in multiple blogs to you somehow makes it *non-notable* in utter defiance of the meaning of the word. People are noting it, ergo it's notable. They're noting it for EXACTLY the reasons I stated to begin with - that it's a well-known tv personality behaving very differently than most people are used to seeing him. The SOLE reason people are getting their Wikipedia netkop pissipants up about it and playing fast and loose with application of "policy" is that it's not particularly flattering.Docsavage20 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of things discussed on millions of blogs. That doesn't make them notable or, more importantly, verifiable. All you've got on those blogs is people saying, "Did you see this?" Big deal. That's like you or me talking about it. We are not considered reliable sources, and especially so because we can't prove the veracity of it any more than those bloggers can. It's just our personal opinion (and that of the bloggers) as to whether it's legitimate or not. Now, if you can find a reliable source that discusses this alleged Trebek video and authoritatively confirms that it is what it's claimed to be, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Websters defines notable as "worthy of note". What else makes something "notable" besides people discussing it? Human minds discussing it. In your words, MILLIONS of them. It clearly has their attention, it clearly interests them. Does it have to appear on a particular news show or magazine for you to declare it notable? As for not verifiable? How many sources are accepted on Wikipedia that are links to text material on websites that are simnply accepted as "true". And we all know how infallibly accurate and unbiased websites, including those of nationally syndicated media outlets are.Docsavage20 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's a subjective opinion as to whether something in general is "notable". Wikipedia can't allow blogs as sources because they are largely just opinions about things. No matter how many folks find that video interesting, they aren't adding any new information about it - like where it came from. And if no notable source has commented on it, how notable can it really be? Rather than arguing for the notability of millions of opinions of average citizens, you should be scouring the web to see if you can find a proper source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're convoluting the point. The reference to blogs wasn't as a primary source but regarding them as a demonstration that something is in fact, notable. It's being discussed, paid attention to, noted. And what's this business about "millions of opinions of average citizens" as opposed to a "proper" source? Sounds like snobbery. So it has to be discussed by some particular cognoscenti for it to be declared truly discussed? That's crap. Are you under the impression that it's inconceivable that some percentage of those "average citizens" are more intelligent and better informed than you are? What's the source of the original video? The production company that produced Jeopardy. Any other conclusion would require belief in an absurd, illogical chain of events - i.e. someone going to ridiculous and expensive lengths to extremely accurately fake the image and voice of Alex Trebek and the set of Jeopardy specifically making a promo about Jeopardy - and there be NO statement regarding this by the producers or Trebek. Find anywhere that Trebek claims it's not him and that he isn't doing what the video shows him to be doing. How did it make its way onto the internet? That might be a little tougher - snuck out by an intern? Someone with an axe to grind? Trebek himself because he thought it would be funny? I don't see that as a particularly crucial point. The fact is it's out, it shows what it shows.Docsavage20 (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're engaging in speculation. Now, if you can find a reliable source to answer that speculation, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, consider the old rumor that there was a censored clip on The Newlywed Game that when Bob Eubanks asked one bride where was the most unusual place they had "made whoopee", her answer was, "In the [...]." Eubanks, the calm and cool host, quickly reiterated that he meant the most unusual "location", i.e. a room in the house or whatever. And there might be a youtube of that, because it wasn't just a rumor, it was actually shown on a "bloops and blunders" TV special some years ago [with the "place" blipped out, as with the way I wrote it], so it could have been widely viewed and commented on. In this case, there appears not to be any reliable-source commentary, so while it may be legit, it's not verifiably so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, the Newlywed Game clip was discussed at length at the Snopes site. [5] Now, if you could find that Snopes has talked about the alleged Trebek episode, you would have something. Maybe it would be worth asking him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For a more recent example, check out Chris Berman. Some YouTube videos of Berman in between takes swearing at miscues were added and removed, but weren't used in the article until reliable sources covered the story. Otherwise, it's truly undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this time and again - YouTube is not a reliable source and it never will be. The minute Kige Ramsey starts becoming a good source for articles is the minute I find a new hobby. --Smashville^talk 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we have three admins opposing the link. Can we just call this "Resolved" that the link is not acceptable for several reasons noted above? Ward3001 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Borg has spoken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docsavage20 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Soccer174

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jakezing And Civility

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few instances of incivility in there [6] [7], but as for talk page rules, meh. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need to check on TV episode articles and chronical copyright violations

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

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

User:Gabr-el

I have no interest in whatever edit war Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). I warned AramaeanSyriac about redirecting a page without consensus, and I warned Gabr-el about these incivilities. and this was Garb-el's response: [8]. Should I just bow out, or would a Wikiquette discussion be appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There are other civility warnings on his Talk page, by the way. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me defend myself against what is a loose conglomeration of misinterpreted edits, that have been turned against me.

1) First, the massive debate between me and Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs). What NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) has failed to appreciate is that both I and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) have been engaged in an edit war which has involved AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) and The Triz (talk · contribs) reverting and editing articles relating to Assyrian People. NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) is making a mistake in an attempting to accuse me of being uncivil, when his only basis is a very limited perspective of my actions.

NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) claims that he has "no interest in whatever edit war Gabr-el (talk · contribs) and AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs)" - this is quite surprising to me, since NurseryRhyme (talk · contribs) is quite well prepared to attack me for one of my edits, and yet notrealize that the edit that I had done was done with consideration towards sources. AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) has failed to provide sources for his Aramaic-Syriac page that are of a neutral and thirda party status. Many months of debating by my fellow editors has yielded nothing from either The Triz (talk · contribs) or AramaeanSyriacc (talk · contribs), and my own recent involvment with extra sources against their case from a neutral third party source (the British house of parliament, Stephen Pound MP and Lord Hylton) was no appreciated by these uncooperative editors.

In the midst of my attempts to stop AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) from moving the Assyrian people article to Syriacs, I demanded twice that he cease his moves which were done without consensus. Then, I proceeded to the adminstrator User:Dbachmann, who recommended that I proceed to the WP:FTN. Whilst waiting for this, AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) continued to edit these articles without consensus or reliable sources. I on other hand have sources from USA today and the Houses of Parliament supporting my view, thus my edits to the Aramaic-Syriac page were not only in consensus with so many other Assyrian editors, but also backed up by 3rd party neutral sources from well-known organizations.

Whilst this very complicated situation was going on, User:NurseryRhyme had the audacity to call one of my own edits as "uncivil", even though I have just explained that they were in a de facto consensus (since I have more editors on my side than on user:Aramaic Syriac's side) and had the reliable sources.

To conclude, I am guilty of nothing, User:NurseryRhyme has simply launched an unprovoked insult against me, without bothering to inquire as to the nature of my edits. My own edit history in the areas of Byzantine History is impressive, and I can call upon many other respectable editors and even admins who can testify on my behalf. Gabr-el 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just starting to sort out this really big mess. So far: 1) I've protected the page until everyone talks civily on the talk page and comes to a real consensus. 2) user:AramaeanSyriac has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation of 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. I'm still sorting through everything, so there may be more. Bottom line, though, is that whole articles don't get deleted/changed into redirect without a really good consensus...even if that means AfD. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::That doesn't address Gabr-el's repeated incivility. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because this so-called repeated incivility is a misunderstanding on your part, blown out of proportions. Gabr-el 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::What part of Do not mess with me. did I misunderstand? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It looks like reporting repeated incivility serves no purpose. I will remember that the next time I encounter it. I've stricken the above since nobody cares. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did address that on his talk page, and if I see it again, I'll take further action. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The part that you misunderstood is that "do not mess with me" means "do not annoy me", a very valid response and warning to a user that you, User:Akradecki, have blocked. I see also User:Akradecki that another admin and another user who were more involved and aware of the situation have already informed you of your actions.

Let me once again warn you against the wrongs you commit by wrongly accusing and misconstruing my edits in a debate of which you have no knowledge of nor have a part in. And in case you seem to take this as a case of further incivility, it is not. All that seems to be happening is that people have been calling me incivil. I invite all to take a look at my contributions and or my history and show to me where this incivility is so I can answer myself. Gabr-el 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned you on your talk page to stop the incivil posts and personal attacks. The comment above crosses the line again.

Gabr-el: This is your last warning (copied on your talk page) - further personal attacks or incivil comments will result in a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? I don't know why I am being called incivil. Show me my errors, and I can answer for them or admit it. Gabr-el 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's your tone and attitude, Gabr-el. I dunno if English is your first language, but you come across extremely abrasive. Stop digging yourself in deeper and move on. Tan | 39 22:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, bt you are correct, English is not the first language. Now, then as for moving on -

• I was accused of incivility. Therefore, am I not entitled to a defense? I was brought here by User:NurseryRhyme, who accused me of being incivil whilst not taking the effort to see why I may have appeared to be incivil
• I apologized to another user, LOTR.
• I sai to User:AramaenSyriac "stop editting the assyrian page or I will edit yours. Do not mess with me". This was said in heat, I admit it may have been a little too much. However, this user (who by the way is now blocked for violating 3RR) was continuously vandalizing several articles. I have User:Dbachmann as my witness. I had to do something to stop his vandalism, so I gave him that hard speech. I told him "do not mess with me", which is an angry way of saying, "leave me alone". Which, User:AramaenSyriac was not
• Finally, User:Dbachmann himself has told the admin User:Akradecki that the current version of the page of Syriacs is not the ideal version. Thus, I was actually acting in a very legitimate manner according to Dbachmann.

There is my defense. I hope you do not take this to be insulting.

Respectfully,

Gabr-el 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We understand that the other user caused the stressful situation. However, it's part of our expected behavior policy that editors not react in a hostile manner even when provoked.

I think that we all understand that you were provoked. But please believe us when we say that we see your responses as having been hostile. It's good that you understand and acknowledge some of those (above, on my talk page re your talk page, etc). But you seem to feel that some of the things we've complained about weren't hostile, in your view.

We would not be warning you if they were not hostile / incivil by normal standards. You need to understand that you went too far. You need to back off a little in your future responses.

I understand from some of your other posts that english isn't your first language. Problems like this happen sometimes, where people who are relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't grow up in the US / other western cultures don't understand all the cultural and language details. We understand that not everyone who looks hostile meant to come across that way. That's why we tell people there's a problem and issue warnings rather than just immediately sanction.

But you need to listen to what we're saying, and change your behavior some. If your initial problem was ignorance of how you were being perceived, now you've been told how you are being perceived. Nobody will blame you for your mistakes, if you can make an effort to stop making them. But you do have to understand that what you were doing was too much, and work on changing your behavior now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - here I thought I saw a thorn on my side, but your sincere speech has calmed me down. I see that you and I have come to an agreement. I was provoked, and yet I did not help the situation either. I apologize to everyone if I was being uncivil. In any case, admins are now actively working at the problem that caused it all, the Syriacs pages. Since this is a one time incident, I will not say that I am in need of a behavior change, as much as I am need of maintaining my prior-self before this incident. Gabr-el 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Intervention welcomed

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

See evidence removal: [9] --Damiens.rf 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way [10] and he is also editing against policies. Please take this into account for the next block. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enric Naval, I don't understand how the diff you provided can be interpreted as "Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way". That diff shows me un-reverting a revert that User:Redthoreau did to List_of_Lebanese_people when he decided to follow-and-revert my edits to articles unrelated to our existing dispute (we were indeed edit-warring over che-guevara related article, when he decided to follow and revert me in articles he had never edited before [11] [12] [13] [14]). And my original edit he reverted in this article was just an uncontroversial removal of red-links from a list. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Reposting personal information by User:Tony1

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

See [15] --UC_Bill (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility concern

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

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

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

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

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

"since their royal Wikipedia highness' have decreed in their own heads and through idiocy of the Wikipedia policies that [the article] will no longer exist, (...) their reasoning is faulty and their explanation lacking much fairness or common sense, at least to normal people. (...) So sorry if I'm not all sunshine and daisy's when addressing them - idiots deserve to be spoken to like idiots if that's how they want to act willingly"[17] "Well then, if I am a MASSIVE idiot, does that mean that I can at least join the club now?" [18]

Followed by a long rant on how WP:N is illogical and unfair to fictional characters, and how character articles should be written in-universe "so that there is insight gleaned into their roles, characters and traits" [19], complaints that characters with a huge role on the series get only a crappy paragraph on a list with "real-world" stuff and lots of complaint on how wikipedia rules are stupid, not based on reason, etc [20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've tried giving Saintvlas22 the benefit of the doubt, but he has also made personal attacks on several user talk pages outside of that discussion and refuses to stop.[21][22] Ironically enough, I tried to be a voice of reason in here, and left both Saintvlas22 and Jujube warnings for their incivility asking them step back and calm down. In the end, I got attacked for it as well[23]. Both he and JuJube are continuing to go at each other on the Talk:Death Busters page and its really disrupting the entire discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

[24][25] You have been far from civil in both of those diffs. This is part of an overall pattern of attacking editors who disagree with you instead of making sound arguments to support your points. It also doesn't help you when you open by declaring that other editors are acting in bad faith if they disagree with you in your initial comments. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

BLP Problems

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Hudson - family deaths, attention useful

Two members of Jennifer Hudson's immediate family were killed today - article seems to be getting some current events attention. No serious problems so far, but as it's a current event it might be good to watchlist it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page selective trimming during a block

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

On this occassion initial deletion [26] with my warning [27]. Now has trimed [28] and [29]. I have reverted these once with edit summary concluding "...Else risk blocked from your talk page"[30] which in turn been reverted by him with "rv - do not editwar on my talk page and do not alter my talk"[31]. I'm not going to personally pursue this further (WP:1RR and 'cos I'm the blocking admin), but could other uninvolved admin comment on this:

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

See WP:BLANKING - exerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible image licensing issues (2)

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

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

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

Twinkle is down

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Need help undoing move vandalism

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Pioneer prefered Lewinsky (talk · contribs)

Resolved

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

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

i.e. [32] --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

School of Law, Christ University

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

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

User:GooglePedia12

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) has been busy adding unreferenced content (not a crime, but he puts it back in when reverted), creating some odd articles (please take a look), and deleting text at Talk:Vomiting. The first time I just restored it, but he came back and deleted more text, adding an edit written to make it look as though it was written by an administrator. [33] I've blocked him for 31 hours - can someone please review this and see if the block is ok, and suggest anything else that might be usefully done? I'm not too happy with what he's done with Jewish Arabs and am trying to figure out if his newest article has any validity. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that your actions were correct. If that block you imposed had been a longer one (think a week or more), I might take issue with that kind of punishment. But impersonating an admin, constantly adding and re-adding unreferenced material, and deleting content from a talk page is enough to warrant a short-term block. "I contested the relevance of the user's section because it had nothing to do with the article ... Dougweller has abused his power by blocking me. Clearly, it was none of his business and I would like to contest his right to block me."[34] This all seems irrational, given that it is administrators' duty to deal with instances such as this. The block was warranted, very much so. I can't imagine that he'll change, but perhaps giving him some advice as to how to correctly add content and how to explain rationales would help. --tennisman 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppet?

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

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

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

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

User:Terryola asking rather fishy questions

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

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

Looks like a WP:DUCK case. Jvolkblum sometimes makes a list of useful stuff on his socks. Also, he added an image to an article[35] that was uploaded by a sock that is part of a checkuser-confirmed sockfarm that has been linked to Jvolkblum based on behaviour. Block him already :P --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Vandal from 118.137.x.x range showed up again

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

User Crazyaboutlost - persecution

Resolved

 – User warned; is now inactive

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

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

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

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

User talk:76.167.244.204

I've posted enough about this guy, the last time is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive485#IP_76.167.244.204. This is a self-admitted sock [36] of Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) (and Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)). When the IP sock was blocked, he asked for account creation to be enabled [37]. When no answer was forth-coming, he basically admitted that he is going to wait until the two-week block is over, and continue his behaviour [38]. When one week of that block elapsed, he posted a "count down" [39]. Now with four days remaining in his block, he's posting yet more [40].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Scarian

Can somebody review the conversation between myself and User:Scarian please. He edit warred with User:WesleyDodds, fair enough, but then templated him in a childish way. I told Wesley to ignore him, like about a week ago, and was given this just now. I replied in a frank manner admittadily,[41], [42] but was responded to by this and this. Oh dear. User is pretending to be an admin, and has written on his user page For queer haters everywhere: [1]) My name is Pat, I am an English and Swedish speaking Wikipedia administrator from England.. Hmm. Thanks, guys. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that this editor is also reverting my replies on his talk,[43] [44] hence why I was a little rude. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Jay, you may wish to note the refactored comment [45] which means my response seems harsher than it was when I originally replied. Pedro :  Chat  20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Wizardman, with all due respect, what you said there means nothing as far as I can see, just obtuse evasive wordsmithing and an admission that you dont have a full grasp of what happened.. Read the timeline. two users at each other's throats is a deep misunderstanding of what happened. He specifically gamed and baited me, he knew what he was doing, and it was a result of last weekend 'trouble'[46]. Note that that 'trouble' is well in the past, and has been resolved with my self and Tan, with no hard feelings. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My fear, from experience, is that I'll be here again next week, with a similar complaint, if this is ignored. And it would seem it is being ignore, frankly. This is not the first time I've seen poor admin actions brushed under the carpet[47], and I'm fairly sure it wont be the last. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See my responce to his sarcastic apology here[48]. Please dont take me for such a fool that such a guarded, insincear, bitter and self serving apology as that would be enough. I asked that he be a man and say "I fucked up", all I got were the bitter snvlings of a child. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:BEAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Man with one red shoe

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

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

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

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

Remarks by Everyme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Imnotacoolguy

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

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

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

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation

As I wrote on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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