Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Postmonger (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 1 September 2006 (rv anon, don't blank legitimate comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    Self taken Provocative Photos:

    If the User:Publicgirluk stops uploading sexually charged photos of herself to Wikipedia, I have volunteered to start doing so myself. My boyfriend and I love to take sexy pics! We are thinking about making one to complement the Anal Sex article.

    Also, User:Anchoress has also expressed interest in making photos for Wikipedia along those lines.

    Thanks :)Courtney Akins 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are hopefully aware that you might be tripping up WP:POINT. Hbdragon88 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say, WP:TROLL. Blocked indefinitely for disruption. El_C 04:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that her edits have been wise... but is an indefinite block really appropriate? Based on the user's contribution history, she seems interested in a) decreasing the Myspace-ness of the Wiki (using a few measures that have been proposed by others, a few not) and b) increasing Wikipedia's coverage of sexuality, particularly borderline practices. For that matter, the behavior you've mentioned hardly seems to come close to WP:BLOCK's description of disruption, and an indefinite block of a user with a couple hundred edits (many of which have been productive) without a community ban is highly irregular. As an admin of long standing, you've earned community trust... but is there something that I'm not seeing here? Would it not have been more productive to raise your concerns with the editor before blocking? Captainktainer * Talk 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree entirely - this block seems very irregular. El C, please reconsider it. -- ChrisO 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to clarify something - I think the editor was in the wrong with her proposal, and I think she was a little haughty and arrogant. But I don't feel that haughtiness and arrogance merit a complete and unilateral ban from the community. I think it might be helpful to talk to the user in question, warn her to spend more time in the community before making policy proposals - a very brief block to cool things off, if there was considerable disruption, I think might have been appropriate. She clearly has a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. But, barring information that El_C has that I don't, I have to question the proportionality of the response. Captainktainer * Talk 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have tried to mentor the above user, I feel that El C's block is pretty much in order. There were things that El C explained to me, via email, that gave me enough reason to believe the block was just. Sure, I tried to help Courtney out and gave her pointers and all of that stuff. But even with my advice, she is doing this, so I am not sure if in the long run if she will be a good contributor or I will be burned at the stake at some random RFAr. However, if this user is unblocked, I would still like to mentor her, but I need something with teeth, because I can admit that Courtney is a wild gal, I just need something to tame her. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay... I think there's something to be said for trust and respecting the long history of established admins in this matter. Perhaps ArbCom would be willing to place a temporary injunction on her, enjoining her not to make policy proposals until they can review her case? That way she can continue to edit while they consider her case. Alternatively, if she's willing to accept mediation, perhaps she could be talked into accepting that sort of remedy voluntarily. Maybe these ideas are farfetched... I just think that there might be ways to handle this situation that don't end in a block. Captainktainer * Talk 08:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were things that El C explained to me, via email - how about it's explained to the rest of us - here? Wikipedia cannot have it both ways, yes THIS editor MIGHT be trying to make WP:POINT but as a general principle, if we don't have censorship here - then within the context set-up in the previous dicussions I have seen about this issue of people uploading pornography pictures of themselves, it seems entirely straightforward and reasonable for members to say "I see the scat article does not have a picture, do you want a picture of my girlfriend shitting on my face?". (I'm actually against pornography images on wikipedia but I bow to the community on the matter). --Charlesknight 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and by the way, real pictures are highly controversial. Even drawings of anal sex and other sexual poses have been somewhat contentious; real photos would be even more controversial. Wikipedia is not officially censored, but consensus dictates what goes into an article or not (like, for instance, whether the drawing in Missionary position should have the teddy bear or not). Hbdragon88 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is talking about what they might do. How is that "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Not finding the word "troll" on WP:BP I am guessing this block is warranted under "exhausting the communitiy's patience" and I must admit to not being familiar with this editor's past but with only one block (this one) to her name I don't really see how the community's patience block applies here. Could someone spell out specifically which section of the blocking policy this block falls under? Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The commonsense part? Tyrenius 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a "common sense" clause in WP:BLOCK, for good reason; the blocking tool is powerful and can potentially cause great havoc, so all blocks should be done with care and forethought. The closest that comes is "Disruption," which has a 24-hour max for the first block. Captainktainer * Talk 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's get everyone to look through all of this user's edits and then go for exhausting the community's patience. Tyrenius 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am so glad someone's had the initiative to indef block this blatant troll. A few hours ago I went through all of this user's edits, and it was unmistakable. This is not a novice. This person knows their way round all the nooks and crannies of wikipedia. Within the first two days they had not only created their first article on "Throat gaggers" oral sex porn film, but had proposed it as a featured article, describing it as a work of "pure genius". That is just such a wind-up. Then as a new user in their first two days they put up a bit of Florida for AfD.[1]. Also in this meteoric career, also in the first two days, they found their way to Categories for deletion on the Rouge Admins template. Day 3 sees our newbie placing a NPOV template on an article on Human rights in Brazil, saying it is "99% negative" and "not sourced" (sources are given), and then, before the day is out, nominating Gay rights in Brazil as an AfD. Need I go on? An extra worry is that this person was not female at all, and was not the subject in the photo. Seems par for the course. It would also be interesting to run Checkuser on this editor and the IP vandal that posted the sexual photos on the user page. Zscout370, I emailed you about this, but didn't get a reply. Did you get my email, or does the Foundation eat them or something? Tyrenius 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not recieve such email, go ahead and send again. If that doesn't work, my WP talk page should be fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at some of the poster's track record, and I can see why someone might conclude that she is mainly here to take the piss engage in satire and merry japes. That said, she still has a way to go before it's a question of community patience being exhausted. I suggest she be unblocked soon on the basis that it's been long enough on this occasion. Metamagician3000 09:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do you explain that this so-called newbie finds "her" way around with a competence that takes most people weeks or months to develop, and yet, despite this obvious sophistication, manages to come out with actions that use all the right words to purport to help wikipedia and yet are all perfectly inappropriate. I've looked at every one of the edits. I suggest you do the same. It's actually highly amusing, but I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to cater for that kind of amusement. Tyrenius 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And if her edits continue to be mainly attempts (some moderately amusing, some not) at satirising Wikipedia, with attendant disruption, I'll probably support an indefinite block "next time". This is sort of like an RfA oppose in reverse. Metamagician3000 09:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to user Tyrenius' post, if this user is an abusive/disruptive sockpuppet then indeed an indefinite block is warranted in this case. (→Netscott) 09:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should unblock "her" just to see what "she" does next. It's hilarious once you're in on it to see everyone take it so seriously. We could just keep it to ourselves. And watch. :) Tyrenius 09:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Strike - it's not very nice that this person is exploiting people's kindness and generosity. Tyrenius 09:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't take offence at Courtney bringing me into this conversation, although she slightly misrepresented me, but personally I have felt that she was on a road to inevitable blocking from the first posts I saw of her. I think she is a troll, I think she is probably a sock (I have some opinions of who but won't smear anyone), and while I don't have an opinion on a permanent block I think she'll eventually get one, one way or another. A third of her edits are great, a third are blatant - at the very least useless to the project and at worst inappropriate - attention-seeking, and a third are subtle trolling. In my interactions with her I AGF, but my opinion is that s/he's like a kid who shoots spit balls at the teacher when her back is turned, then sits there with an innocent smile the rest of the time. Anchoress 09:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bang on target. Tyrenius 09:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to read every single diff, but I looked at a few more, and it just confirms what a few of us have been saying: this user's career here is an elaborate piss-take. There may be some genuinely helpful edits somewhere, but if so they are hard to find.
    I dunno. She's wasting a lot of our time, even if some of it is funny once you understand what she's up to. I suppose it's a question of whether there is any admin who is prepared to tell her that we got the joke and we'd now like to give her a chance to edit seriously. I'm not going to be that admin. Maybe someone else is more soft-hearted. If anyone does give her a second chance, I for one will watch her. If no one does, I guess that's the definition of a community ban. Either way, El_C made a good catch here. Metamagician3000 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I support an indef ban as the very first ban, for a user with a record, if that record includes productive edits. I'm inclined to agree with MM3K about the career so far but I do think someone ought to tell this user "we get the joke and here's your chance to edit seriously". So I'd give this user a second chance and watch carefully. I'm not seeing consensus either way yet though, and I'd like to hear from El C before I overturned his block, as I REALLY don't like to overturn other people's blocks. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assume Good Faith" doesn't mean we have to act willfully stupid or credulous. I support El C's action, because this user smells like an obvious troll to me. Nandesuka 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as Lar is the one doing the watching, I'm with Lar here.(you did volunteer! ;-P) You will indef block if this person acts up again, right? Anybody strongly opposed? If not... good luck! Kim Bruning 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if I overturn the block I'll keep an eye on this user to the best of my ability (but welcome help). Perhaps a notice to the user to that effect by me is in order as well. Maybe even a mentorship. And yes, if something does transpire that is unacceptable, I would block indefinitely, I've blocked indefinitely before and have no issues with the concept, just didn't think it was warranted yet in this case. El C, is this acceptable to you? ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see any warning related to the reasoning behind the ban, this seems out of order, and perhaps inspired by other events unrelated to the user being banned. I recently looked through this users contributions, and I see that other reasons may have been involved with the ban, however those reasons were not made clear. HighInBC 15:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't say I support the block. Based on looking at a few diffs, the user seems naive (e.g. lack of appreciation of copyright), but not dangerous. I also hope we're not blocking people just because they offer to upload pictures of anal sex. If we prefer to stick with illustrations of sexual techniques as opposed to photographs (I've no opinion on this), we can tell the user this rather than blocking them outright. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtney doesn't seem to be an overly disruptive user to begin with. Considering this is her first block ever and she was blocked for disrupton, seems a little suspicious. I think she would need to be mentored for Wikipedia civility, if anything. Her message above was inappropriate, yes, but blockworthy, maybe not so much. I would have tried to talk to the user about her actions, and block (for maybe 48 hours) if she continued to be disruptive, but indefblocked.. never.. for the above message. I don't know if her block was very justified in the sense of disruption, because no warnings were ever used and there doesn't seem to be many comments on her talk page about her conduct prior to her block. — The Future 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done the look-at-every diff thing. Somebody said a third of her edits are great; they aren't. Of her edits, I counted six which seemed OK, and only one, this human experimentation business she agitated about on AN/I, which truly helped the encyclopedia. My opinion is that Courtney couldn't troll us any harder if she had came back in time from the future with a cybernetic trolling machine with which to troll us. She's completely disruptive, but in a slow, methodical way that has been shy of producing any blocks. Should she be indefed? Sigh, I guess not. I suggest reducing the block to a week and letting this episode stand as a warning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no doubt that the sole purpose of this account is disruption, and I commend El_C for acting on that basis. However, it was a BOLD move and he has properly posted it here for discussion. Some other users have raised various doubts and opinion is divided. I think it is right to make sure that people are happy with admin actions. One objection is that a warning was not given for what could be seen as naivete, rather than deliberateness. I propose that this block to date should serve as that warning, and now be lifted. It is not going to do a great deal of harm now that Courtney Atkins is going to be closely watched. It won't take long to confirm things one way or the other, and it should at the very least provide some amusement. Has there ever previously been an article simultaneously a Featured Article Candidate and an Article for Deletion, I wonder? I propose also that any user should feel free to revert any action by Courtney Atkins, if they feel it is not appropriate, provided they leave an explanation on Courtney Atkins' talk page as to why they have done so, for educational purposes. Also, bearing in mind the pranks, we should not allow the uploading of any photos, unless it can be proved that these are the copyright of Courtney Atkins. Tyrenius 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That all seems reasonable to me. I'm not lifting unless 1) either I hear from El C or a clear consensus here develops, right now it's not clear to me yet, and 2) the user responds positively to my offer of mentorship. I note Zscout offered to help mentor as well. Others may choose differently but those are my criteria for lifting.++Lar: t/c 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I support Tyrenius' suggestion, upon hearing from El_C again. — The Future 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. My only fixed position is on the photos, which I feel otherwise could be a serious error. Tyrenius 21:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it could be. If she's unblocked, I think she should be allowed to upload Images as long as they aren't about the very pointy ones she expressed here about self-photos of her recieving anal sex. I would support of blocking of her is decided to post those Images. — The Future 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had encounters with Courtney, and I've read this post, and I'm stongly opposed to the unblocking of Courtney. She is a WP:Point troll in the worst sense of the term I kind of just made up. She is almost dilberately hypocritical in the sense she posts about Wikipedia becoming myspace, while she has a photo of herself plastered on her userpage and makes posts like these[2][3][4][5]. I'll confess I haven't read the book, but I doubt this. Also, I find these posts just really odd[6][7]. Also, it didn't help when she suggested a Stalinist system of maintaining user accounts. She has certainly exhausted my patience, demonstrates trollish behavior, and to be perfectly blunt is up to no good in my opinion. Yanksox 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm an outlier here, but when I contrast this user with other "exhausted our patience" users, I'm just not seeing that we're anywhere near that point yet. I think you guys know I think of myself as firm and intolerant of trolling (some of which I do definitely see here) but I'm not seeing the exhausted part yet. I expect typically to see a larger history here, or somewhere else, before I get to "exhausted my patience" state. You can count on me to mentor this user and if it's not working out, block, and block hard. But if the community doesn't agree, that's fine too. I'd like to get to a conclusion though, if possible. I wish El C would speak up again. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholly agree with Courtney Akins's proposal. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    unblocked

    After hearing from El C that he has no objections, I have unblocked this user. See: User_talk:Courtney_Akins#Unblocked. What I would ask from the rest of you is twofold, give me the space to mentor this user and see if they can reform and fly right... don't expect me to jump on every little thing. But on the other hand, DO please bring things to my attention, issues, advice, anything you feel I need to know. My email and talk are always open to my fellow admins. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, cool with me. Metamagician3000 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be happy to co-operate. Tyrenius 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A victory for the trolls. Again, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what Jeffrey? Lar has volunteered to bear the burden so you don't have to. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, every single person has to deal with "her" trolling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that message she left on your talk page, it's been you who has decided to reply to everyone one of her threads with WP:TROLL links. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to mentor this user, and I'd ask if there are new issues that arise (unless they are extremely urgent), please bring them to my attention first and I'll deal with them... this ensures a consistent message. There are those that think I'm on a fools errand, and I may well be, but I'd like to give it a fair try. If Courtney can't improve I'll cut the communities losses to be sure, so please let me try, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have to "exhaust the community's patience" to be blocked indefinitely

    Catching the tail end of this on returning from a break, I just want to protest the notion that an account needs to "exhaust the community's patience" before they can be blocked indefinitely. El C clearly didn't place an "exhausted patience" block but an "all edits trolling" block. Such blocks can with perfect appropriateness be set on an account's first day. Why ever not? We frequently invoke "All edits vandalism" as a reason for pretty much immediate indefinite blocks; is there a significant difference between that and this? No. Not even if the editor was savvy enough to technically make one or two non-trolling edits just to spike our guns. Lar's wasting his time, but it's his choice. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Chiming in to point out that I've blocked a few accounts indef (see for yourself: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) ) in some cases with just one edit (when that single edit was by an account with a bad username that was clearly vandalism) so it's not that an account NEEDS to have exhausted the community's patience. It's just that it was asserted (or felt to me like it was asserted) that this one had, and I'm not sure that's the case, as it hasn't yet exhausted mine and I think I'm part of the community (right? er, maybe don't answer that? :) ). Note also that I didn't unilaterally lift, I got El C's concurrance first... I could well be wasting my time, who knows, we shall see. (something you've suspected me of doing in the past in other contexts, mind you) Or maybe I have other motives, as I did those other times you thought I was wasting my time. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you weren't the one barking up the Exhausted Patience tree as if it was the only one in the forest. But several other users were. A metaphor of dogs, not monkeys. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    No one objected when I indef blocked User:General Tojo without warning, for ex. Perhaps he lacked the promise of sexy pics! ;) El_C 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of the fact that User:General Tojo was banned indefinitely without warning. Perhaps you are a bit too trigger happy with your ban button? Dionyseus 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Awareness is good! El_C 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did his sockpuppeting come before or after the block of the original account? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Samsara. Let's just say he was using Wikipedia as an experiment for trolling, but a more pro-Nazi than anti. Luckily, everything he said was in English, so it was —and remains— actually readable to us on the En-Wiki. El_C 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My review of General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests much more there to exhaust patience and I support the block. Note also that the indef was not the first block. Shorter blocks are a form of warning in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Differential treatment for "I am an 18 year old hottie who wants you to see her body" accounts is a laughable constant on the Internet. You would think that Wikipedia would have enough folks with sufficient experience, or at least a sufficient number of "disinterested" people, to not fall for it. Courtny was one such. Publicgirluk may not have been. I did some research, and there is an account name by that handle very active in sex sites in the UK, but that doesn't confirm anything. Tojo was a troll who announced as much with his account name and then demonstrated it amply with his edits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean being a fool. Geogre 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You show an exemplary demonstration of AGF by accepting the user is indeed an "18 year old hottie". I must confess I have not found it possible to achieve the same standard. :) Tyrenius 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Syphonbyte

    Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was briefly blocked for being an impostor of Cyde, and then unblocked on AGF. A CheckUser I have just run shows that the account was very likely created by Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with whom Cyde appears to have had a dispute, for harassment. The impostor account is now reblocked, but I leave it up to you to decide what to with the creator of the account. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Syphon for 48 hours. I would not object if another admin feels a need to lengthen this block. JoshuaZ 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has requested a review on their talk page, I reviewed it, declined to lift, and support this block. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hours seems about right for a first offense of this nature. Hopefully he will realize he is now on a short leash and any more sockpuppets will escalate the ban. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you may want to check this out for more suspected sock activity. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For impersonation of an administrator and sockpuppetry (verified by RFCU ) combined with trolling this editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Samir (The Scope):

    • Endorse: This is one community ban that should be enforced. (→Netscott) 12:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evasion: user syphonbyte evades the block by editing with his alternate account User:Gotem. He has only edited his talk page so far[8], but that edit was to remove the reference to his other username syphonbyte. Fram 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Goodness, that's quite an assertion. I don't see problem with making productive edits or removing a reference to my friend's page, as he was banned now, (most unfortunately) so there's no point in having a link to his page. I'm his (blood) brother, I took him to the med center when he was injured at the statue. Gotem 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah right. The user page stated that syphonbyte used this as an alternative account, and it suddenly gets back active after syphonbyte is indef blocked. What a coincidence... By the way, this means that syphonbyte either lied when he said that Gotem was an alternative account of his, or that he did not lie then but is nlying now and evading his block. Either way, it does no good for his case... Fram 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Timacyde (talk · contribs)

    Could someone take a look at Timacyde? It's very suspicious - he has a forged welcome note from Cyde on his talk page, and then he transcluded User:Syphonbyte/Holdem onto it. I'm thinking he may be a sockpuppet of Syphonbyte. He has more weird stuff in his contribs. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef for trolling -- Samir धर्म 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as though Syphonbyte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is evading his block here. This page created by Syphonbyte: User:Syphonbyte/Holdem relied upon this image Image:HoldemifJEWgotem.jpg uploaded by Timacyde. (→Netscott) 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Timacyde is now abusing the {{Stop}} template to the point of freezing browsers on his talk page, so I would recommend that that be protected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that image had an interesting history. (→Netscott) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected by The Anome -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Back (and blocked) as Edy_C._Syew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same image. (→Netscott) 00:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:Clyde_Wey and that user name's corresponding talk page could be protected that'd be hepful too. (→Netscott) 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpage has been protected. I'm not seeing any pressing issues with the respective talk page, however. El_C 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tis a bit odd that Clyde Wey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is active at the same time as this latest batch of socks. I'm starting to think that Syphonbyte (talk · contribs) is heading for an indefinite blocking. (→Netscott) 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Reindent): only a suspicion, but seeing his vehement defense that the latest bunch are not syphonbyte but some of his friends, he probably is right. He is always working together with User:The Raven, User:PhoenixPinion, and some other ones (User:The_Raven_is_God, User:Polfbroekstraat, User:Gotem, and to a lesser extent User:Charlesxavier). There is also some connection to User:578 alias User:EdYlC (yep, Clyde spelled backwards)... I have run into them a few times before, and they have exhausted at least my patience (which may be a lot faster than community patience, of course). Fram 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, I also had an encounter with the guys Fram mentions. Most of them seem to be students at the same school. A lot of meat puppetry is going on here, I think - some of them are inactive for weeks and then re-appear out of the blue to support Syphonbute or the Raven. There is a little sockpuppetry going on too (eg I still wonder whether User:70.152.52.77 was not really one of the four guys behind the Belgian hoax articles). But no, there are real people behind most of these names (except for User:Gotem which User:Syphonbyte has acknowleged as an alias).--Pan Gerwazy 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A warm thank you for all editors / admins involved in stopping this! Fram 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And a warm this is only be beginning for those of you who knowingly took part in this scheme. You can run one user off Wikipedia, but you can't erase the good that I did for the encyclopedia. I'm only going to do more good, the name I do it under is irrelevant. 80.58.205.33 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From SledDogAC

    The information I have added to the webpages is all correct and verifiable. I have provided documentation for what I write, in sharp contrast to AKMask's edits. AKMask doesn't want wikipedia to be neutral. This person has an a pro-Iditarod, pro-musher agenda that he or she only wants the public to know. If wikipedia wants to be held in high regard, it will ban administrators and editors like AKMask who act like dictators to keep facts from being told. I certainly don't deserve to be banned. Here's an example of what I've added and what has been repeatedly deleted by AKMask: (removed due to enormity)

    Political Cantankery

    I have a slight hunch that a local politician may have attempted to use Wikipedia for his own political gain. I know this isn't exactly vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the protocol in place for this situation. The user in question is Stampedem. The contributions in question have to do with the Eliot Shapleigh, and Dee Margo articles. These two men are both candidates for a seat in the Texas Senate, and as you can imagine, this sort of conduct has arrisen. I reverted some of the changes this user made too the Shapleigh article, and am currently researching the portions of his/her contributions I did not revert. I will document my findings on any other revert on the article's talk page. I also left a message on their talk page on the topic. Getting to the Margo article, what raises concern is that not all the contents of the article are exactly true. I have already tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{Not verified}}, and will be going through it over the next couple of days to check the facts. Also, although the author attacked the Shapleigh article with a sort of smear-campaign-style contribution, only a sentence of the Margo article deals with the upcoming election. In all honesty, Margo is somewhat of an unnotable person--although accomplished, his most notable quality is that he is running for a position as Texas senator. Hence, I also marked the article with {{Importance}}. I need to know how to attain the IP of a user, that way, I may run a trace to see if this user is indeed who I think they are. Please, if you have a moment, look into this situation. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Somnabot 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Only people with checkuser permission can do that... See Wikipedia:Requests for Checkuser. Otherwise, it seems like you're doing the right thing by yourself. You can also warn them about WP:NPOV and possibly WP:AUTO. If the problem persists after that, come back here. Grandmasterka 01:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If these folks are merely candidates, then both articles should be on AfD, IMO, where candidate pages are pretty routinely sent to the bit bucket. If they're both independently famous and important but charge and countercharge are in the news, you might also look at the Slashdotted article -- depending on how many spurious edits you think the articles are getting. After the Mark Taylor (politician) situation (and I mean the Wikipedia article) hit CNN, other politicians will no doubt have learned a "lesson" about politicizing us. I agree that we have to be extremely vigilant. Geogre 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am continuing my efforts in regards to this matter. I have replaced all three tags after Stampedem removed them, and expained why on the discussion page. I'll keep you all up to date. Somnabot 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The user continues to fight my changes, and seems to be unfamiliar with civility. I continue to explain my perspective to him/her on the discussion page, yet he/she keep fighting me. Please help. Somnabot 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lingeron/Thewolfstar

    I gave her many, many chances to change her attitude and editing style before reporting it, but Thewolfstar is back, this time in the form of Whiskey Rebellion, making the same strange edits. See her talk page and contribution history for evidence. This one seems like a no-brainer, but I would like to have others take a look into it. --AaronS 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like a complete no-brainer (assuming it's Maggie, she's gotten a lot smarter), but a Checkuser may be in order. There's a suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia markup, combined with a similarly tendentious (though toned-down compared to previously) editing style. Watching Maggie's initial meltdown (I didn't participate (much?), but watching was more than enough) was deeply unsettling; it wouldn't be pleasant to watch it happen again. However, we need to be absolutely sure before we do anything drastic. Captainktainer * Talk 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To help with this, perhaps you should take a look at User:Lingeron's edit history. She was also a sock puppet of Maggie, and was also a bit more careful. The fact that she has toned down a bit is the reason why I waited so long to report anything to WP:AN/I. But I've been dealing with her for weeks, and it's pretty obvious to me, now, that she's a sock puppet (and my initial hunches tend to be correct regarding sock puppets, anyway). She's doing the same old thing, accusing people of being part of a communist conspiracy, calling them anti-American, claiming that there's an anti-American bias imposed by America-haters, and so forth. She's also highly sensitive, and lashes out quite a bit, per usual. Now she's accusing us of editing while drunk. --AaronS 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, AaronS, it was DTC who first made the observation that you and Blockader were editing Wikipedia while drunk. This is evident by your conversations on talk:Anarchism. You both sound drunk and have all but admitted that you edit while drinking. I'm sorry that you think I am this (these) users. I'm just not and it's frustrating that you've driven good users away with your constant accusations like Two-bitSprite. As far as knowing markup, I've already explained to Bunchofgrapes that I've been using computers for 11 years, (since I was 9 years old), and can do quite a few things concerning their use. Another thing that you mentioned, the anti-American thing, This user says she is anti-American on her page, and this user also claims to be 'un-American'. That is what started me wondering and saying such a thing! I never said there was a communist conspiracy. What a thing to say! I have also, btw, been accused of being possibly User:RJII and User:Hogeye here: User_talk:Bunchofgrapes. Whiskey Rebellion 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. As far as the facts are concerned, Two-Bit Sprite and I got along together quite well, actually, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. When you work a lot on an article and get to know all of the editors there, the bad with the good, it becomes easy to recognize who's whom. It's like reading the same few authors over and over again. After a while, you can be presented with a short paragraph from an unnamed book, and, without much effort, name the author and title. Regardless, I don't consider myself to be one of the partisan editors; it's just that I consider the actions of the partisans on one side to be a bit more offensive than the partisans on the other. Needless to say, I get along quite well with everybody from both sides of the spectrum, save a couple of editors who have been notoriously nasty to all who disagree with them. --AaronS 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I brought this issue to Bunchofgrapes' attention a week or two ago (now in the archive), but at the time they didn't seem it was clear enough to block yet. Also see User talk:Bishonen for another conversation (also in archives). Anyway, they have definitely toned their edits down as mentioned above, although it has gotten worse the last few days. I however am convinced this is thewolfstar. I also think DTC and That'sHot should be checked into as well (DTC is accused of being an RJII sock, and I also mentioned this on both Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes' talk pages), but am not as confident as with Whiskey Rebellion. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It could very likely be her. One way to find out is if she comes here to WP:AN/I and starts posting about my crappy edits, my slanderous statements about others, or simply about the fact that I don't know the name of Trunk Highway 100 which is located in Minnesota. (Or is it SPUI who's supposed to make that complaint? I forget.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear to me. The account name is straight out of Maggie's farm. (Read about the Whiskey Rebellion: it's her kind of topic.) The evidence is certainly clear enough for a check user. Since enough folks are questioning the identification here, we'll need to RFCU before blocking, I suppose. Geogre 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. I thought that was obvious enough though. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, too, but it's a good thing, generally, that we do the RFCU if there is any doubt, and that the question came up here, first. This way, we can tell the overworked, good humored folks at check user that we aren't bothering them frivolously. Geogre 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Edipedia and his sockpuppet Editor 1 edit warring, removal of warnings, and vandalism

    Edipedia has engaged in a long edit war on Han Chinese and other Chinese-ethnic-related articles such as Overseas Chinese, pushing his POV in apparent ignorance of Wikipedia policies. Attempts to discuss with him and to educate him in Wikipedia policies failed (see his talk page and the long discussion at Talk:Han Chinese); Edipedia edits regardless of talk page discussions, sometimes with abusive edit summaries [9] [10]. Edipedia does not seem to be fluent in English [11], which can be understood and is completely acceptable. However, any note or warning that went into his talk page was abruptly removed without any reason [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] etc., despite continuous reminders not to do so. Attempts to discuss from about five established users in Wikipedia, including User:Sumple, User:Nat Krause, User:HongQiGong, User:Instantnood failed miserably as Edipedia refused to listen to any advice, making comments like "I do see a lot of Stuff and nonsense here" and commenting that he thinks Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and therefore he is free to edit anything [18]. He also tried to correct what he see as grammatical mistakes [19] [20], but most of the time it was he that was wrong, and he refused to listen to it and started to tell others to "study English grammer" [21]. He then started to politically accuse others of being "Taiwanese" [22]; then, despite reminders of WP:NOT a soapbox [23] he continued to accuse others of various political matters [24]. In the meantime he continues to make POV or wrong edits around the article Han Chinese (in various parts of the article; all of the edits are reverted by separate contributors, to be added by him again). I requested the page Han Chinese (and later Overseas Chinese) to be fully-protected to try to make Edipedia discuss logically; however, Edipedia immediately requested the page for unprotection twice [25] [26] (second one using one of his sockpuppets, Epedia, as he was blocked for his third violation of 3RR), claiming that "edit war has died down". The second request succeeded. However, he immediately started an edit war, making 4 reverts under 40 minutes [27] [28] [29] [30] (without any discussion or edit summaries, to be reverted by User:Instantnood and User:HongQiGong). Any attempt to discuss with him failed; he then engaged in pure vandalism, including the placing of obvious illegitimate warnings [31] [32] [33]. After being blocked 48 hours for the fourth violation of 3RR [34] after three more reverts in Han Chinese (reverted by me and HongQiGong), he created a sockpuppet account, User:Editor 1 and continued edit warring [35] [36] [37] [38] and pure vandalism, including the disruption of Administrators' noticeboard (the particular case about Edipedia) [39]. More evidence of sockpuppeting is here. User Edipedia continues to blank his talk page. Edipedia has another sockpuppet, User:Epedia, which he sometimes uses when he is blocked. Epedia is an obvious sockpuppet: see [40].Aran|heru|nar 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Without regard to this report, I blocked Editor 1 for 4 days for 3RR violations, disruption, and personal attacks (per this) alphaChimp laudare 03:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edipedia has made another obvious sockpuppet, Yepre. He is continuing his reckless edit warring in Chinese people, making four reverts under 24 hours with the account alone. Aran|heru|nar 02:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edipedia is trying to remove the sockpuppeteer tag from his User page. He has removed it three times already[41][42][43], and will most likely keep going until an admin stops him. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting ridiculous. He illegitimately put a sockpuppeteer tag on my user page as retaliation for my edits[44]. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DTC

    This user is busy in with a elaborate campaign of POV violation, which lies beyond the scope of this noticeboard. His methods of complex vandalism do not: the user is extremely fond of Wikilawyering, using it mainly to strike sources opposing his views from articles, especially the old problem article of Anarchism. He has made a complex 3RR violation striking an excellent source (a violation so complex no admin made a judgement). He insists on removing a slew of sources, some impeccable, despite my repeated pleadings for him not to and explanations as to why not on the talk page. Later other editors gave fuller defenses of some of these sources here which the user has ignored in striking them from the article, unilaterally, first one excellent source, then a bucket of sources (as he had before). Having thus removed sources opposing his POV he frames his POV as the scholarly consensus. Due to his dishonesty (he claims, twice, to have read all the sources and not have found the claims in question) his aggressive misrepresentation of sources (as discussed in the talk page) and of Wikipedia policy (concerning what is an acceptable source) I believe it impossible to consider his acts as those done in good faith. I ask for administrator intervention explaining to the user the unsuitability of manipulating Wikipedia in this way, since he has been edit-warring for weeks and has brushed off all attempts at mediation (note how his list of "verified" sources is unchanged since a week ago, despite some of these sources being justified on the talk page in the mean time). I have not mentioned all the details here for conciseness - I can be contacted for a fuller explanation of the points on my talk page. Thank you in advance --GoodIntentionstalk 06:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now for the real story. You're the one that put in those sources and I gave you ample time to come up with page numbers so they could be verified but you couldn't do it. Why couldn't you do it? Because you never accessed the sources. You took them out of another Wikipedia article, which you admitted. Apparently you don't know that information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you cite a whole book and claim that somewhere in there is the specific claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, how is anyone to verify that? I looked through some of those books and I didn't see the claim in them. And you didn't either. The burden is on you to show that you allege to be sources actually are. You need to give us a page number, and a quote as well would be better. When and if you do, I'm going to look it up in the book to verify it. If you assume bad faith, that's your problem. I haven't given you any reason to assume bad faith. I have even deleted sources that were claimed to say anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, because I went to verify it and it didn't say what it was alleged to say. But if you want to assume bad faith, go right ahead. Your assumption of bad faith is not going to stop me verifying the sources and deleting any that can't be verified. And yes, please send us some intervention, preferably from someone who cares about Wikipedia having reliable information. DTC 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for intervention in a content dispute, but for someone do address the violations of WP policy (through manipulation of sources) that DTC has been guilty of. The content dispute is a different matter, and as old as the hills. It's made unmanagable by the edit-warring of this single-minded bad-faith editor. --GoodIntentionstalk 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    70.35.237.67

    70.35.237.67 began by adding speculation and unsourced statements at Lexington, Kentucky which was removed several times by myself and another user. The IPUser argued and began digging through my user contribution list, editing Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky. The IPUser was given clear instruction on proper procedure at Wikipedia regarding the original incident, but ignored all suggestions. He was then warned after vandalising numerous pages and the IPUser has gone as far as to remove the warning templates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also reported it earlier at the Mediation Cabal, to which the IPUser has already vandalised with irrelevant garbage. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing spreading over several article. Also engaged in taunting editors with uncivil play on their user name. --FloNight 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DENY-driven deletion spree

    Cyde has gone on a deletion spree of fifty-four vandalism-related pages; make note of the contents of his deletion log (copied here for ease of historical viewing, hidden for courtesy of the uninterested; yes I'm aware the Nav classes don't work in many browsers/skins):

    Deletion log

    The Willy on Wheels' non-wiki appearances subpage was the result of a MfD, as the Outoftuneviolin subpage, and unless I'm missing some sort of major event, at the moment those seem to be the only deletions that had any sort of legitimate justifications under the official deletion policy. As Cyde has not made any sort of declaration or announcement of his actions (a quick contribs glance proves that easily), I highly suspect he will defend himself with claims that he has "full community backing" in the matter, and definitely "there is no controversy over WP:DENY" will come up many times (getting any deja-vu yet?).

    I'm just starting to feel sick at the sheer, sheer, sheer disrespect for process occuring here. ~ PseudoSudo 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to interject, some of us are starting to feel sick at the worshipful attitude towards process which is infecting Wikipedia like a fungus. Why did you think WP:IAR was formulated in the first place? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR is about things for which we have no policy; it is cited by people who haven't good reasons for what they want to do. If I deleted that page, would it be a cute case of IAR, I wonder? Geogre 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lol That's a good one. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The sooner we abandon it, the better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the worshipping process for its own sake, elevating it above the actual goals of the project, just so some people can get their jollies playing Junior-league Perry Mason? Hear hear! --Calton | Talk 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When that occurs, we can deal with it. Until then, people who cite IAR are usually the ones playing to indifference and prejudice rather than reason. Geogre 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TThe other relevent discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Indef blocked userpages - new policy and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories This is a coordinated effort to eventually get rid of all vandal pages and categories. Some of them can go, but some are useful (see ANI discussion above) however I feel that Doc and Cyde are ignoring that fact and will soon be pushing thier total deletion agenda on everything. Check their deletion logs. pschemp | talk 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh...that's disgusting. Such a gross level of out-of-process speedy deletions should be "rewareded" with immediate and permanant desysopping. jgp TC 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's as disgusting as it would ever get, worse even than out-of-process userbox deletions... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns, but I don't believe the deletions were at all out of process. Put simply, vandals shouldn't be given their own pages on Wikipedia. All vandals want is attention and those pages were giving it to them. Those pages were just adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying these pages should not be deleted, I'm saying these deletions are out of process, which is not the same thing. Yes, WP:DENY is an interesting essay, but it has to mature for some time before being applied. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Let's desysop him at once. because you know, Wikipedia is all about process. Screw the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While these deletions are out of process Cyde's actions are understandable (if a bit too speedy). I agree with others that vandals shouldn't be "rewarded" by having more Wikipedia infrastructure than is necessary utilized to properly manage their disruptions. I'm guessing that if need be Cyde can as easily unspeedy these deletions for proper review but at first glance his motivations are surely in the right place. (→Netscott) 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that he's just doing it and not really discussing it with anyone else (which is his "thing" anyway, if we recall, for instance, his stable version on Elephant action), I'm not even sure if we can say his motivations are surely in the right place. It seems to be that he's motivated to make things the way he wants them, and deal with the lack of consequences later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that his apparent motivation to reduce vandal "rewarding" is out of place Badlydrawnjeff? I do not concur if that is the case. (→Netscott) 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm making no judgement call on the value or lack thereof, it's irrelevant to this. Given his track record, healthy skepticism is a requirement in my mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrative actions regarding meta-material such as this really don't seem — to me — to be worth wailing, gnashing of teeth, and shirt-ripping. Can we turn down the drama knob a bit? Nandesuka 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this were an isolated incident, it'd be one thing. This is one in a list w/Cyde, and a demonstration that certain members learned nothing from the userbox debacle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In which way these deletions improve WP's quality, I wonder... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excercise left to the reader. submit before Monday 10:00 am. -- Drini 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation for those who don't get my point: Yes burn him!!!! 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Fine. You can have your damn pillar. Let's just allow corrupt admins to avoid doing pesky things such as "building consensus" (you know, the principle Wikipedia is supposed to be based on) before going off on massive deletion sprees. jgp TC 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The real concern I have is where will this stop? Some need to be deleted, yes, but some are useful and that fact is being ignored. There is a perfect example of that on ANI right now, yet no one is talking about where the limits of the deletions are. pschemp | talk 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly. A bit of rational discussion produces better results than stomping off on a crusade, almost every time. Friday (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rational calls for desysoppings are usually better. -- Drini 15:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK look. I don't really care one bit about whether these deletions are in or out of process. Honest, I don't. And arguments that they are out of process truly miss the point, which is that we are getting some things tossed that we need kept, things that admins working hard to counteract sock vandals need to get their work done. I'm prepared to restore items that got deleted by mistake, without regard to DrV, and take the heat for it, if the case is made to me (in whatever manner you choose) that they're needful. This is starting to verge on throwing the baby out with the bathwater and arguing about whether it is in or out of process is itself wankery. (from both camps!) ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Process is a means for determining community consensus; so is just plain talking. Let's decide if people think some of these pages are useful and restore them. -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start. I looked through the deleted pages, and none of them look useful to me. Anyone else? -- SCZenz 15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement with Lar here. While these items are useless, I'd be in full support of they're being restored "out-of-process" if someone can present a valid and useful reason. Bastique▼parler voir 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, you know, community input isn't one. Is that how I should interpret this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You need a reason that you wish them restored, sir. Not just an objection to how they were deleted in the first place. -- SCZenz 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have ways we go about doing these things, sir. An objection to how it was done tdue to lack of community input is an absolutely valid objection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you want the pages back, talk about the pages. -- SCZenz 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the only disruption at this point was the out of process deletion. Too bad you're supporting such nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I agree with Friday. I've been open about what I'm doing all along - hense my post up above yesterday solicitating comments. I've been listening for any rational objections. I've sent the categories to CfD for a full debate. But changing things round here is always a matter of being bold and talking at the same time. Boldness only and you get backs up, talk only and you go in circles. I sense a consensus is emerging. Sure, it will need to be tweeked - a case for keeping some of the vandal-forensics may exist (I've yet to hear it tough). Nothing I've done is irreverable - although no-one has reversed anything yet.--Doc 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc, here is one Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy that *is* useful, right now. Why? Because the people fighting that vandal said they need it. It is covered by your proposal to delete all LTA pages. It's been pointed out to you multiple times I think, although maybe you missed it. If it gets deleted, in or out of process, I'll speedy restore it on request, and to the devil with process. I'm turning my process wonk badge in, I think. I say that and yet I am totally in agreement with losing memorialising things, we don't need them. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For my part I completely support the spirit of what Cyde and Doc are doing. There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them. Any pages that are of actual ongoing utility to people dealing with vandalism are another matter, but it is unclear to me that these monuments are in fact useful in this fashion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The case discussed at AN right now is an LTA page that was recently useful in convincing some admins that a new editor was in fact an old vandal. That's an excellent use of the LTA concept. No one needs an LTA page for Willy any more, page move vandalism is obvious and doesn't require investigation. We also don't need to categorize vandals except in the cases of subtle vandals that require investigation, and we don't need vandal templates as long as a reasonable summary is included in the block log ("page move vandal", "attack user name", etc.) Too much of the anti-vandal tagging and categorizing is about scorekeeping, and obvious vandals don't need to be tracked or counted. Just block and move on. I support 90% of these deletions and I would recommend that if any LTA pages that are needed for the more subtle vandals are deleted, to undelete them and make a note on the page/talk page. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is absolutely no sense in keeping monuments to vandals around just because we can't muster a supermajority on MFD to delete them.".
    I see. We can't get a consensus on MFD, so let's delete 'em with no consenus. I'm afraid the implications of such a logic are quite far-reaching - and a little bit terrifying to say the least. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the MfD page where there is no consensus for deleting? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2 was overwhelming consensus in favor of deleting. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal was closed keep because it was initiated by a troll, not based on the page itself. There are several CfDs in favor of deleting. Perhaps there could have been a few more MfDs to clarify the support of the matter, but there is no good reason to require posting all 54 of these pages to MfD. If any of them were deleted erroneously, they can be restored. —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So take it upon your own shoulders to undelete the set and list it under one single, five-day MfD; no one has objections for multiple pages on a nom. ~ PseudoSudo 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as one who deals with sockpuppets, keeping these kinds of pages really isn't very helpful, and I wholly support removing them. The things that vandals do--page blanking, page moves, insertion of inappropriate material--are readily recognizable as things which are bad for the encyclopedia and should be reverted. We don't need these monuments and shrines. I wholly support getting rid of them. Badlydrawnjeff is laboring under the mistaken idea that vandal pages have something to do with encyclopedia and fall under the rules which govern content. They don't. They're cruft. The community exists to serve the encyclopedia. You're here to serve the encyclopedia. If it's good for the encyclopedia it stays. If it isn't then it goes. If you don't agree with these propositions then you'd better go too, because you're here for the wrong reasons. Now, there is space for a debate as to whether these are useful and should be kept. The recent CfD debates suggest a general consensus to delete most of them, to the horror of vandals. Cyde, as always, has perhaps been exuberant in his interpretation of events. He does that. He also might be right. Instead of quibbling over process, let's ask whether he's right that we should nuke these pages. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Save for the LTA pages etc. (as necessary) Doc and Cyde are right. Less vandal monumentalizing and more encyclopedic work. (→Netscott) 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, if he didn't act so rashly, we'd not be "vandal monumentalizing" to begin with. If you want more "encyclopedic work," start restraining the people who drag us away from it with their unilateral actions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I always giggle when I see someone call admin actions "unilateral" - as if some of us have a lil monkey on our shoulder that presses the delete button the same time we do :) FWIW, I have yet to see any argument for keeping the pages and I support the deletions. Shell babelfish 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, you've got, by far more comments on this topic than anyone. Nobody is dragging you from anything but yourself. Bastique▼parler voir 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn straight I do. I'm also not the one preaching about doing more "encyclopedic work." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one support deletion of all vandal trophy-cabinets. They glorify wrongdoing, and very likely do more harm than good. Vandals are vermin and should be reverted, blocked, and otherwise ignored. I also agree with Mackensen that there may be a few cases where forensic information is useful, but it is in a small minority of vandal pages: we need to discuss which may be in this category. Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, the thing is, where is a new user going to find information about a "prominent" (for lack of a better word) vandal if he runs into one? For example, how was I going to find out, back when I was a newbie, to look for the tell-tale signs of WoW? Or better yet, if I hadn't had found the page where it was documented, wouldn't I have been a bit unprepared to be an admin? Where would we have written the IP information when it came to the Squidward vandal a while back? IIRC, someone used it to make some phone calls to the ISP. I do agree that sometimes these pages are created unnecesarily, but it feels like you're throwing the baby along with the bathwater, and that many of these pages should not have been deleted. At the same time, explosive and spectacular antics like those seen here just distracts those who are actually trying to edit articles for a while and run into the latest meta-turf war. Titoxd(?!?) 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So, should we delete most of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, too? When subpages for individual vandals aren't useful, then nether are subsections for individual vandals on WP:LTA. --Conti|✉ 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not necessarily, but this is exactly the threshold that needs to be debated. There's a difference in quality and scope: for example, some of the dedicated pages have their own logos and art work for specific vandals. This is the glorification that needs to go. Google also picks up these individual pages. Antandrus (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone want to take this to deletion review? --Ixfd64 07:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow (pun intended), lots of heat, some light emerging - dons asbestos suit and medium strength sunglasses. Let's keep it simple folks. Doc made a very sensible post further up the page seeking comments to help guage feeling on the matter, then lobbed Category:Wikipedia_blocked_imposters and all sub cats onto CfD. Cyde is now speedily deleting much of the vandal related LTA pages, citing WP:DENY. This has been decried as circumvention of process and has upset some people. That's the heat.
    The light that's emerging seems to be a general recognition that the vandals should not be rewarded with immortalisation by whatever means (category, own LTA page, templates, specific logo's etc), but that some of the LTA pages are actually useful for dealing with the problems while still current. I would agree with that and suggest that a simplified heirarchy is adopted for the whole vandal fighting infrastructure:
    • No "imposter of Vandal X on Wheels" categories and other vandal / sock / username block categories whatsoever. Just maintain a single indefblock category.
    • A single template for indefblocked Users pages {{indefblockeduser}}. No "Sockpuppet of ...", "Impersonator of ..." templates etc. The block log should be explicit as to the reasons for the indef block, nothing more is needed, placing it in the single indefblock category.
    • LTA pages should be created if required to deal with serious vandalism, but deleted when the immediate threat posed has clearly subsided.
    Perhaps over simplistic, but the current infrastructure is out of control. I think we need to head back towards first principles, simplify the process and eliminate the free publicity which many of these juveniles seek and which keeps them coming back in their droves. Just my 50p worth :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm late to this discussion. I'm also not a fan of the vandal glorification pages and am quite pleased to see them gone. Process, however, would have been fairly easy to follow here by means of an MfD on the lot -- which would pretty much have been the discussion that eventually happened here, and seems to be in favour of the deletion of the pages? -- Samir धर्म 09:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IAR

    On Ignore All Rules: The concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia. It has a long tradition, and deep and subtle meaning.

    In other words, the capability of not doing everything by-the-process is fundamental to wikipedia. That's why it's a pillar. But again, that's only crazy jimbo opinion -- Drini 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a pillar, per se, simply a Jimbo decree, and one that we'd hope taht the rest of us in the trenches would have grown out of. "Long deep tradition" doesn't mean it makes sense now, and perhaps a wider discussion is in order since people are interpreting things the way they are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been a pillar for a long time. IT's the 5th pillar and has existed much before this (it was here when I joined a half and year ago). Jimbo just reinforced its policy status. I know you find it disturbing, but that's the way it is. You may want to make it stop being policy, go ahead and try. But now it IS policy. It is supported by jimbo (who's higher than even arbcomm), and we're following policy. Now, I think the discussion about the desysopping has ended, and if there are other topics, they can be discussed at proper places. -- Drini 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misinterpreting the pillar for your own agenda here. We don't have firm rules because we come to decisions largely on consensus, have no binding decisions, and our policies are fluid with the times. Now, I don't think the discussion is over about desyssopping - at some point, the community's patience with Cyde is over, and we may be very close to that point. Hiding behind IAR doesn't address the overbearing situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're makign progress. YUou know acknoledge it's a pillar. And all policies MUST derive from the pillars. I think you're the one with the agenda, trying to mislead people thinking that IAR is not a pillar and it's not policy, and that was just recently added by jimbo, all of three claims being false. -- Drini 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually. I do not acknowledge that IAR is a pillar, I do not mislead anyone because IAR is not a pillar, and IAR was NOT a policy as listed until very recently. I was wrong about it not being a policy, absolutely, but that's because, well, it wasn't until it got snuck back in. I'll work to change that, but the other two, no, I do not agree with your interpretation one bit. I question your ability to administer with this in mind, knowing what I know now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, I'm blocking you for 3 hours so you can calm down. When you return, please keep your rhetoric firmly in check, and maintain civility. Nandesuka 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this block. pschemp | talk 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this block. What has he done that wasn't civil? Disagreeing with popular opinion isn't auotmatically incivil. --W.marsh 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely uncalled for; can you provide diffs of disruption? ~ PseudoSudo 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. He's (fairly civilly) expressing his disagreement; are we blocking people for merely that now? Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff is getting on my nerves. I do not think, however, that is grounds for blocking and agree with W.marsh. Bastique▼parler voir 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing annoying is this pushing for dysysoping Cyde bit (aren't RfC's and ArbCom for that sort of talk?) but I agree with others that he shouldn't be blocked. (→Netscott) 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been unblocked, and of course I will not re-block him. I remind him, however, that he should be addressing arguments to topics, and not ad hominem. Nandesuka 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Quadruple Edit Conflict) WP:DENY is only an essay and it is treated by everyone as a policy. Anomo 16:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm not. It is just a good idea. That's enough. --Doc 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So if it's a good idea, why don't we try to convince people of it and make it an acceptable policy guideline instead of forcing it? I have no issue with the idea, either, but, obviously, a lot of other people do. Didn't we learn anything from the userbox charade? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that some people spend far too much time on things that don't involve the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indeed starting to wonder what you did learn from that affair. I sure didn't learn that process takes precedence over all else. Rather, it demonstrated that both blind adherence to process and blind being-stupid are harmful, and can form the two sides of a wheel war. Common sense is what is called for, and it is never always process or always ignoring it. The proper way to carry on a discussion in our hopefully common sense-based community is to argue the merits, not the process, of the situation. Dmcdevit·t 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally? I saw that policy by fiat causes situations to be resolved in a matter of months, with lots of waiting and gnashing of teeth, regardless of its merits, while a rational discussion before action can often come to the same desired conclusion harmoniously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff, you saw in the userbox wars that a rational discussion before action can come to the desired conclusion harmoniously? Did I miss the part where that happened?
    My non-facetious point, which I don't wish to lose in the tone there, is that the idea that policy can be hammered out in discussion without testing through bold application and vigorous participation in the resulting discussions, is an untested hypothesis, and one that I don't find at all compelling. Wikipedia is a little bit like laws and sausage - the squeamish ought not to watch them being made. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think rational discussion was ever seriously attempted, not that massive deletions would have helped the case. I do see many controversial policies work via discussion and consensus, however - for instance, CSD A7 is a great example. Even WP:BLP, which I'm not a huge fan of, didn't occur overnight. The policy was created as the issues were discussed and slowly implemente. There's absolutely no reason this couldn't have been handled the same way, especially given the amount of work people put in regarding combating vandalism. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the userbox situation wasn't handled all that well. I like to think that a few of us were attempting rational discussion, but there was enough noise to drown most of that out. I don't know much about the background of A7 or WP:BLP. I know Jimbo asked us, as a community, to discuss the reasons that userboxes are a bad idea, but most people couldn't be bothered to have those discussions, and many who tried found themselves sidetracked and running after red herring after red herring about censorship and disclosure of bias and everything else. I wish more people saw more value in more communication. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is forcing anything. I posted to this board and spelled out what I was doing and asked for any reasoned objections. I sent the categories to CSD, where an overwhelming consensus (almost unanimous) is agreeing with my analysis. I'm sorry if I didn't jump through whatever procedural hoop you think I ought to - but consensus is clearly with me. Otherwise, I'd have stopped, or been reverted. THat's how things work round here. That's policy and consensus in action. Don't tell me there's lack of debate - we're debating it everywhere, and we are clearly winning the arguments. You are in a minority here. I don't claim IAR as a justification - I claim common sense and consensus--Doc 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some of us can't revert you, which is part of the problem. It's not really policy and consensus in action, but I know that you and I have fundamentally different ideas as to how things should go here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this discussion here should end. There is no malfeasiance here, by anyone, that is so clear-cut that it calls for quick administrative action; thus this is the wrong page. Discussions of whether WP:DENY is a good idea should take place at its talk page. Discussions of whether people should be desysopped should take place at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Discussions of the place of IAR, process, etc. should take place on the mailing list (per item 6 here). -- SCZenz 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. Except for the part about nandesuka blocking Badlydrawnjeff, that belongs here in any case. I find Jeff's comments in this matter not very helpful and swimming against the tide but I am not sure I support that block, and want to voice my opposition (even though it's been lifted). It feels like a block by someone involved in a content dispute to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern, but I was unblocked, he's not reblocking, and it happens. It got reversed easily, as I wish most wrong decisions would be, and it's a done deal on this end. I have no ill will toward him, and I don't intend to push that issue further - mistakes are made, and he's stated that he's not going to reblock. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing disagreement with a policy or pseudo-policy is never a reason for a block, not even temporarily. I am both appalled and disappointed by this administrative action. At no time has badlydrawnjeff been uncivil throughout this thread. Silensor 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. It was an absolute shocker. But since an apology has been made and no hard feelings appear to be present, the debate moves on. Badgerpatrol 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a User:General Tojo-related discussion? I never really saw much practical use for the vandal-tagging. I sometimes create redirects for some block-evading ips, mostly for my own memory. Why not just create redirects when needed? El_C 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    DRAMA!!! That's what we want to see! Nuke all worthless pages.--MONGO 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (3X Edit Conflict) The problem is a lack of documentation. WP:DENY says it's a wikipedia essay. The only information about wikipedia essays is this tiny thing in the category that says, "Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces." I'm not speaking of whether this page deletion was right or not, I am saying the wikipedia essays need some more documentation, such as an agreed upon page describing when best to use them. Anomo 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Essays are used some decisions. I've seen WP:SNOW used as a justification to close an AFD early. Hbdragon88 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That should emphatically not be allowed. IMO, any deletion debate that's closed per WP:SNOW deserves an immediate DRV. jgp TC 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some essays are interpretations or extrapolations of other policies and guidelines that are heavily contingent or tentative or not fast-fixed, and there is also a difference between a truly personal essay someone just posted, and a more general explanatory essay agreed by many people. —Centrx→talk • 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criminy! I only have to write a persuasive essay to get my way? Cool! Why have I been waiting around trying to get people to agree with me, before? I have lots and lots and lots of ideas that I can turn into essays. One of them is "Those who cite IAR are out of arguments and afraid of discussion." I can expand on that for a full screen. This has made my day! Geogre 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything offensive or harmful to the encyclopedia in what Cyde is doing. Metamagician3000 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is censoring. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User 999 thinks he owns wikipedia

    I don't have to do anything, newcomer. I suggest you take it easy until you learn the ropes. I'll be happy to get you blocked if you need a lesson. Have a nice day. -999 (Talk) 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    really? Thank you for the threat, you will be reported to admins.--Shravak 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC --Shravak 22:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, 999 doesn't seem to be brimming with good cheer, but that was part of a three revert rule warning. Please try to work out your disagreement on the article's talk page, respond graciously to requests for citation, and avoid getting grumpy notes about edit warring on your talkpage by not edit warring. Jkelly 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shravak, you are not the first person that 999 has been uncivil towards so I've asked him to be more polite in future. However, I must also point out that 999 has very strong evidence of sock puppetry against you. I must also warn you that sock puppetry is a much stronger offense than incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that because the user is rather new, some lineancy is called for. I did block him for 3RR, though, as he was propperly warned. El_C 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban on Nixer

    As once stated on this noticeboard, I was unfortunately involved in an edit conflict at the article on Pluto with Nixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This resulted in one of two WP:3RR reports filed against me by Nixer, both of which were deemed pointless in blocking me for disruption of Wikipedia three hours after I had stopped, in which the first case, he editted the outcome twice to remove the "Not blocked" and again to "No consensus" not half an hour later.

    When I found that Pluto had been reverted to one of Nixer's versions, again, I rewrote the intro, which led to the above mentioned second AN/3RR filing. This reversion made me suspcious and I filed an RFCU on Nixer, and it was proven that Verger (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Nixer. Because of my own, and administrator Cactus.man's involvement in trying to discuss this with Nixer, and his subsequent 24 hour blocks for 3RR and disruption and sockpuppeteering, Nixer filed an RFCU on myself and Cactus.man, which we both proved to be useless and used for fishing (we both supplied our IPs from however we managed to retrieve them, and by my contacting Voice of All, he left a clerk note stating the fishing reason).

    Nixer has been blocked on and off for the past year because of WP:3RR and other violations, totalling up to 918 hours and 15 minutes (over 38 days) (give or take, due to blocks and unblocks) and in the recent week has (to the best of my knowledge) just been trying to get me blocked to make a WP:POINT, by saying "It seems the rules completely obsolete in Wikipedia: some users allowed to do what they want and others arent allowed anything," or "(Cactus.man) is obviously a friend of Ryūlóng."

    I do not know if this user has exactly exhausted the community's patience, or not, but he has surely exhausted mine and Cactus.man's. With such an extensive history of 3RR, sockpuppeteering, and other such violations under Nixer's belt, I believe that the community should decide upon such an action (if need be, I will try to file an ArbCom, but input on anyone who was involved in the prior "Revert war in pluto" conversation to comment here). Ryūlóng 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • After reviewing the evidence it appears to me that the project would benefit from banning User:Nixer. Temporary blocks have obviously had no effect on him. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Nixer simply does not respect the rules of this community and should have no part of it. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. The user has been blocked over 20 times in one year (from yesterday), all for 3RR and edit warring. The lesson has not been learned, dispite intervention by other users. It is with heavy heart that anyone should be community banned, but this takes the cake. Teke (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nixer's RFCU request did have one shiver of light. The need for a checkuser to strongly reject/decline a request was seen. I created this new RFCU template after talking with Mackensen: Rejected --Kevin_b_er 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree This users attempts at calling to points in policy and ignoring the spirit of the same gets no sympathy from me, we allow too many breachers, pointers and provocateurs already. --Alf melmac 07:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh dear, it's an either or situation. Certainly, his block log is a complete train wreck of 3RR violations, and he shows absolutely no sign of being able to modify this disruptive behaviour. Something needs to be done however, and if it's not a community ban then his behaviour must be examined by arbcom. His recent behaviour before and after my recent block of him is completely unacceptable, including sockpuppet abuse and frivolous RFCU requests in spiteful retaliation. As a recently involved admin I offer no opinion on a community ban, leaving that to others. I will of course participate in any RfAr if submitted, or possibly even get round to it myself, time permitting. Ryūlóng seems to have provided all the necessary diffs, but if anybody needs further info re my involvement, drop me a note. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest an RfC in the first instance, and a warning that there will be a one week block for the next violation of any kind. This does appear to be a serial violator of 3RR, but I see at least some sign that perhaps a productive editor might exist underneath it all, although edit-warring over what he appears to see as the appalling crime of calling Pluto a dwarf planet (which it is, according to the IAU) surely qualifies for WP:LAME. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nixer can really be a pain to deal with due to his stubbornness, but he has a number of good contributions and in my opinion he in general was an asset rather than a liability. I am against indefinite community block on this stage but I would support some limiting of his edit warring (e.g. 1RR or 2RR instead of 3RR) as well as some sort of a formal mentoring ( I volunteer to be a mentor, but I would need an assistance from somebody in a Moscow timezone). If we need a formal Arbcom decision for this, I would support the Arbcom. abakharev 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP, odd cats, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and 3rr

    User:Liftarn was reported for a 3rr vio at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he was continuously removing category:Holocaust denial and Category:Anti-Semitic people, claiming that these removals were valid as per WP:BLP and therefore not subject to 3RR. Due to the fair number of sources in the article documenting Ahmadinejad's disdain for Israel and etc., I don't really buy it; however, i blocked him for only 6 hours, out of good faith and in the hopes that they could maybe chat about this on liftarn's talk page. Some people are unhappy with this. So i figured i'd bring it up here. Liftarn continues to claim that his reverts are not subject to 3rr, while other editors feel i didn't block for long enough.

    But i'm not looking for a resolution to this content dispute; i have some specific questions:

    • what are the limits of WP:BLP, and what happens when someone believes they are using it legitimately and others disagree?
    • How can a category such as Anti-Semitic people possibly exist, containing living people, in a npov fashion, not impinging on BLP guidelines? how do we decide--even with sources--whether or not someone is an anti-semite in a situation such as this?

    thoughts? --heah 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I don't see how it's possible for Category:Anti-Semitic people to mesh with WP:BLP. Especially unnaceptable is its statement that "Wikipedia defines anti-semitism as X." That's original research, boys and girls, and the worst possible kind: it's for the purpose of labelling people with a highly-loaded term. It could be replaced, I suppose, by Category:People who are called Anti-Semitic or Category:Allegedly anti-semitic people—which would have the criterion that some notable source had called them Anti-Semitic. This criterion, unlike the current one, is at least self-consistent under NPOV. -- SCZenz 00:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This category has been nominated for deletion 4 times and each time resulting in no consensus to delete or rename. It sure as hell isn't going be ironed out on WP:ANI either. I can clearly see why Liftarn can easily justify to himself why 3RR wouldn't apply to him either. I think the proper thing to do here is keep it reverted (since the Category still exists) and together start a discussion/debate on WP:RFC so we can finally have a policy to work with in future, because I can see this definitely happening again and again in future. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A very valid point. One thing I note is that it hasn't been nominated since before WP:BLP became a widely-known official policy, and it may no longer be consistent with our current mechanisms of handling biographies of living persons. I'll look at the category a bit more and possibly re-nominate it. But yes, this isn't the place to discuss it; if anyone wants to argue with what I wrote above, or discuss the general issues here (rather than the specific incident), please direct that to my talk page. -- SCZenz 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should be unblocked here. His edits were quite certainly in good faith relative to WP:BLP. (→Netscott) 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsense. Whatever shred of "good faith" one can attest to his reversion of the anti-Semitic people cat, despite all the evidence on that, does not apply to his reversion of the "Holocaust denial" category. In that regard he was engaged in a one-man reversion war. He had zero support for that reversion on the talk page. For that alone his block should have been far more than the six hours imposed. That was no way a good-faith invocation of BLP, by any way shape or form. I think Heath errs is treating reversions for the anti-Semitic cat and the (relatively uncontroversial) Holocaust denial cat as being equivalent.--Mantanmoreland 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's up in half an hour, and his continued removal of Category:Holocaust denial wasn't problematic under BLP. Which is why i still went ahead and imposed a short block. SCZenz pretty much echoes my views, but BLP wasn't applicable to everything going on with the reverts. --heah 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In this rename discussion the majority of views were either for rename or delete on Category:Anti-Semitic people. I imagine in DRV that renaming might go through.... I'm not really sure why the renaming wasn't instituted. (→Netscott) 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. The admin who closed discussion noted that "there is consensus for the category to exist." Actually it was nominated again two weeks later, and more voted to keep unchanged than to rename. [45] --Mantanmoreland 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly at some loss at to understand this. He reverted two cats, one definitely not a good faith reversion under BLP. If he had reverted that alone would it have warranted a longer block? I fail to see how reverting two cats is less problematic than reverting one. Also note that on his talk page he views this whole 3RR thing as "wikistalking."--Mantanmoreland 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about the Holocaust category as I'm not that familiar with Ahmadinejad's story in that light and I'd have to research that... but if Liftarn was targetting the anti-Semitic people category and that other category was in the mix... then I'd say it was fair game per this section of WP:3RR. (→Netscott) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    MA would consider it "libelous" not to be called a Holocaust denier.--Mantanmoreland 01:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Mantanmoreland. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the anti-Semitic people category has been very contentious and it is very evident that there is no consensus on that. If the Holocaust category wasn't clouding the issue I doubt Liftarn would have been blocked here. I suspect the issues with these categories may need to be discussed on the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. (→Netscott) 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you let Liftarn or any editor revert infinitely the "anti-Semitic category" tag, then you might as well do away with the category. That may be all ducky for an editor such as yourself who opposes both the category and MA's inclusion therein, but seems a rather backwards way of approaching the situation. There is such a category, and if the evidence is mountainous that a person belongs in it, as in this instance, citing BLP and revert-warring using that language is bad faith and should be subject to 3RR. Otherwise you have endless edit warring.--Mantanmoreland 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the problem exactly? Not enough WP:RS? I'd say not. Or we are afraid that MA (as BLP) is going to sue WP? Highly unlikely. It seems to me that certain uncomfortable events or speeches are so uncomfortable for some users, that they want to hide them under the rug hoping the problem goes away. Sorry, human history is full of uncomfortable events and good encylopedias should expose, describe and systematize them. Oh, and this particular issue has been discussed to death, so starting another discussion is not going to help. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the category (anti-semitic people) should exist or not is not a discussion for this forum. It is not WP:OR to say the MA is Anti-semitic; the US senate went on record as such, and his Holocaust denial is beyond denial. With verifiable reliable sources, I do not think it can be considered libelous (libel needs to be false, see Slander and libel), and as such, does not fall into the scope of WP:BLP. If anything, removing sourced and cited material is vandalism, in my opinion. -- Avi 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No 3RR exemption. Here's a tip for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: if you don't want to be seen as a Holocaust denier and an antisemite, stop denying the Holocaust and stop making anti-semitic statements. Remember, I said if. El_C 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Self identified underage user

    While fixing move vandalism on Wikipedia pages today, I came across Meleh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This user identifies as being six years old. Should this user be blocked under the continually written WP:CHILD? Ryūlóng 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What precisely does the user have to do with WP:CHILD? ~ PseudoSudo 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem to be posting any personal information. What's the problem here? --Ryan Delaney talk 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-identifying at 6 may not be wise (and it might not hurt to say so) but, beyond perhaps putting the user's talk page on our watchlists, I see no reason to act. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My observations:

    • User hasn't revealed her identity yet.
    • Is creating semi-useless, but valid redirects (i.e. obscure scientific name for animal species -> common name)
    • Lack of communication (has yet to respond to anything on her talk page)
    • Does not provide meaningful edit summaries
    • Most worrying, does not have a good grasp of spelling or punctuation. eg: Assinus (misspelling of Asinus) and "(moved Acinonyx rex to King cheetah: because that,s it,s name"

    I say she should be blocked for 3-4 years (might as well be indef). At her age, the quality of her contributions are dubious at best and trying to convey any notion of "policies" to her would be a futile exercise. --  Netsnipe  ►  00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, let's think about this one for a few seconds. Not to sound evil or anything, but what are the chances that this user is 6? I have members of my kin older than that and members that are adults but are afraid of editing Wikipedia and are unsure about it. This just seems too strange to be actually true. Yanksox 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that grasp of English and saying that "I'm 6 years old" is enough evidence for such a block. If this user is 37 and is saying he/she is six that is even worse. Ryūlóng 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like as good as time as any to trot out my perennial complaint that WP:CHILD's directives are far too tame: I don't think underage persons should be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. That's largely unenforceable, of course, but at least Wikipedia can point to that policy and say, at least in principle, kids aren't allowed here. We don't really need the editorial input of children anyway, do we? Not only is it a sane public-image policy (in these times more than ever), but it's good for the quality of the encyclopedia. wikipediatrix 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you have a perennial complaint about a draft policy that is less than a week old? :) Thatcher131 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew someone would jump on that :) I've been making the perennial complaint about children editing Wikipedia since long before the advent of WP:CHILD, but I was condensing things for brevity's sake. wikipediatrix 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not serious, are you? We have several very capable administrators who are "underage" where I live... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dead serious. What if one of the many editors who was flirting with User:Publicgirluk and begging her to email them more sperm-faced porn pics had turned out to be a child? What if she responded and did so? What if parents found out and went ballistic? What if it blew up into a very-bad-for-Wikipedia news story? Something like this IS going to happen, it's only a matter of time. It's not a matter of if, but when, and it will bring me no joy to be able to say "I told you so". wikipediatrix 13:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They blocked Publicgirduk?! Oh my god, what is going on? Lapinmies 16:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, man, I cannot disagree more; the absolute, complete, total, 100% wrong way to go about this is to ban all "underage" users (and, given that Wiki is a global encyclopedia, there is no one "underage" threshold). The absolute, complete, total, 100% right way to go about this is to educate our users, particularly among the youngest, of the potential that Wikipedia and/or any website holds (within our purview, of course, Wikipedia is not your parents). Until the necessary technology is sufficiently widespread to make age restrictions effective, any attempt to implement your "solution" would, if taken to its logical conclusion, shut down the Worldwide Web altogether (and, no, I'm not exaggerating). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be a bogus user identity, of course, but another possibility is that this is a precocious first- or second-grader who loves animals (the user's edits are all about animal species), sitting at the keyboard with Mom or Dad or older sibling doing the typing. No WP:CHILD issue here per lack of identifying information as noted above, but there may be other issues. There's no evidence that the user has ever noticed his/her talk page or the warnings on it. I disagree strongly with Wikipediatrix about excluding all "underage" (under what age??) persons from the project (though the strength of my opposition could depend on what age is meant), but this probably isn't the place for that discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing here seems to justify a block at this time. Just careful monitoring. If the user's spelling issues become more difficult or if some other issue (such as identifying information) crops up we should take action then. JoshuaZ 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there were the massive amounts of double redirects and the minor page move vandalism created over this user's joining at Wikipedia. At least now we know that there may be a six year old editor out there and we can help her, if need be. Ryūlóng 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may eventually be a problem if she fails to respond to things on her talk page when we need to talk to her, but for now, we should just keep an eye on her. As noted above, a number of editors are underage, and that's generally not a problem if they behave well (same standards as adults). We should be careful how we try to bring her into the community, but we should at least make a good effort. Imagine what kind of an editor she'll be in 10 years if she grows up with our culture (provided things work out, of course). --Improv 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would totally be inappropriate to block just because of this person's listed age. If they aren't giving out personal information and aren't causing lots of problems, leave them alone. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. - FrancisTyers · 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    COPPA doesn't even come near what Wikipedia does. COPPA only applies if you're taking personal information from a user (and we're not; the optional e-mail address is not personal info anyway). Even if COPPA applied to a user's posts, Wikipedia's common carrier status would keep us exempt in the same way that if a child were to use e-mail to reveal personal info, the e-mail and internet providers would not be liable. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I frequently act like one online). Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to contribute to this discussion if I may. This individual would not be the only young editor on WP. My daughter is also an editor, and she is 7. This was her own idea after reading a book that she liked and asking me to look it up to see if it was on WP (she sees me editing WP frequently). She is well-versed in not revealing personal information, due to an online game at some kid's site (Disney or something like it) that she has been playing for years. She started using a computer when she was 2 - logging herself in on my Linux system and using Netscape/Mozilla to visit a selection of kids sites I put on the menu bar. When I switched her to a Mac before she could read, she complained that it was harder to use as several things like logging out had to be done on menus which assume the user could read :-) In any case, she has agreed only to edit WP with supervision, and I've helped her with a bit of wording and use of a template, but basicly the article A Moose for Jessica is her work. —Hanuman Das 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again with the undiscussed page moves by Meleh (talk • contribs) again

    1. 08:54, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Seal (moved Talk:Seal to Talk:Seal (disambiuguation): ?)
    2. 08:54, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Seal (moved Seal to Seal (disambiuguation): ?)
    3. 08:53, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Guanaco (moved Guanaco to Guanaco (disambiguation): ?)
    4. 05:24, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Amphicyonidae (Redirecting to Amphicyonid) (top)
    5. 00:49, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Biota (moved Talk:Biota to Talk:Biota (disambiguation): ?)
    6. 00:49, 1 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Biota (moved Biota to Biota (disambiguation): ?)

    --  Netsnipe  ►  06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ohnoitsjamie‎

    Abuse of power. VAndalizing my page and viloating the 3RR rule. Warned several times and continued to vandalize.TheTruth2 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you see any other administrators or fellow editors here agreeing with you? Three (corrected)separate administrators apart from Ohnoitsjamie have blocked you in the past. Two other administrators and four editors including myself agree that your reports to WP:AIV and WP:AN3 are groundless. Please learn to accept community consensus. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Then it needs to be updated then.TheTruth2 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chadbryant

    Chadbryant has been subjected to ongoing harassment over a long period of time, particularly by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dick Witham. The latest ploy is to upload a picture from his personal website onto a user page of a sock, as in Chabba, now indef blocked. He has recently been sent a harassing e-mail through Wikipedia from Chabba. Can the sending email address be blocked from using the system? Tyrenius 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I should point out that Chabba/Linden Arden is not the same individual as "DickWitham", but is working in tandem with that user. - Chadbryant 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the image, as I don't think it needs to sit at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for the next couple of weeks. Jkelly 01:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any user who has been doing more or less what most sockpuppets of Dick Witham have been doing, especially harassing Chadbryant, using his images in "abusive" ways or whatever, can be indef-blocked. What do you mean by "blocked from using the system"? Do you mean Wikipedia's email tool? --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bebi (Dragon Ball GT)

    User:TJ Spyke and User:KojiDude have been edit-waring over some trival matter for a while now. 65.175.202.243 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both have been blocked for 24 hours for the moment. --InShaneee 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Giano & WP:CIVIL

    Please see current discussion timelines on User talk:Lar, User talk:Giano, User talk:Kylu & Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3. Giano opposes Carnildo's RfA (which I have no interest in) and harasses Lar for his support of Carnildo, then starts personal attacks against said user. I warn him for civility problems, he takes it personally, and continues, implying that I had no authority or reason to block him (even though I pointed out the civility concerns). I've blocked him for 48 hours in the sincere hope that he'll cool down and start reacting civilly in the future. It was suggested to me to post this so record my motives for said block, considering that Giano may decide that I'm biased against him somehow.

    Fun, ne? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fun, no. I did unblock, since the situation was, in my opinion, cooling down (I have been following it all too closely and if I had a stress meter it would be way up there) and this block was (and in all honestly still is) likely to reverse that. It is not policy to block as punishment for incivilty or not assuming good faith; blocks should be for preventing (further) disruption and I neither believe Giano's invective has risen to disruptive levels in the first place nor that this block was going to prevent more of the same. However, I am generally friendly with Giano, and thus admit I may be vulnerable to some bias here and will bite my lip and be quiet if anybody says I was wrong to unblock and overturns me. I am going to sleep now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've done the unblock, so I'm done with the situation. I don't block as punishment, since last I checked that wasn't policy (except possibly in the case of 3RR, where to me it seems that's part of the reason they made policy as such, not that I agree with it) and I am loathe to "punish" someone when admins are just "users with more buttons" anyway. Anyway, with the large number of attacks ongoing between my warning to Giano and when I logged back in, I felt the situation was escalating out of control. Again, I don't know Giano, Carnildo, you (nice to meet you, though!) and Lar only vaguely. As you've said you're friendly with Giano, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd keep an eye on the situation and do as needed: My hope was mostly to give Giano some cool-down time so he wouldn't spend it attacking others instead of being productive. C'est la vie. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that Carnildo seriously wronged Giano and has never shown any contrition about it. Partly for that reason, I have opposed Carnildo's RFA. I strongly support the idea that something should be done to remove the damaging note placed by Carnildo in Giano's block log. That, however, does not give Giano a licence to address Lar, in particular, in the way he did (see the exchange on Lar's talk page). It went way beyond ordinary incivility into quite ugly attacks of a personal nature. A 48-hour block for that was entirely justified in my opinion. I fully support Kylu's action, and believe that this block by Kylu should not have been lifted, especially by someone who admits to being "friendly" with the person blocked. Lifting blocks in these circumstances sends the wrong message about what kind of behaviour is acceptable here. We should support, not undermine, fellow admins who are prepared to impose blocks for such behaviour. If the blocking policy is thought not to cover it, the blocking policy needs to be updated to reflect the reality that such conduct is unacceptable. Metamagician3000 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I add that I have not overturned Bunchofgrapes, in the spirit of not wheel warring, but part of me feels I should have. Metamagician3000 09:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned Giano's behaviour had already reached disruptive proportions, and a block was proper. Unblocking without discussion was not. --kingboyk 10:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with kingboyk. Also, I have given Giano a {{civil2-n}} for his unacceptable message on Kylu's talk page, attacking this user's integrity and worthyness of adminship. I would normally have given a {{npa2-n}} or 3 (not sure which),but I felt that, given this user's previous incivility, this was a general problem related to respect of other editors, and as a result turned into a personal attack. If we can quell this user's breaches of the civility policy, I think that personal attacks like this would stop. Anyone who disagrees with my judgement of Giano's comment on Kylu's talk page, please discuss it here. I am more than happy to concur with concensus over this edit. Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that Giano's comments warranted a block. Yes, he was ugly and over-the-top, but blocks should not be used lightly in these situations (this is exactly how the whole pedophile wheelwar started in the first place). Now the block's lifted all is well. The Land 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the wheel warring problem was undoing other admins (including undoing Jimbo, if I recall correctly) without discussion. That's wheel warring. So, if there's any parallel in this case it's not the blocking it's the unblocking. --kingboyk 11:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic problem was trigger-happy use of admin powers, and this was borne out by the ArbCom judgement on the case. As I say, I am with Bunchofgrapes and think Kylu's block was borderline in policy and probably a bad idea in the circumstances. Handing out blocks to other users-in-good-faith because they are misbehaving somewhat is not what admins are here to do. The Land 11:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This limited-term block for egregiously insulting behaviour toward Lar and other respected users is not in any way analogous to the ... let's all agree ... outrageous indefinite blocks that were imposed by Carnildo and led to his desysopping. Being a good-faith user is not a licence to attack others. Repeated misbehaviour should have consequences, not as punishment but as a deterrent to further such misbehaviour.
    Really, Kylu's decisive but relatively conservative action should have been supported, or even commended, by the rest of us. I've never encountered Kylu before, but from what I've seen here I have confidence in her. Metamagician3000 11:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLOCK does not state that users who misbehave should be blocked, nor users who are incivil. The proper procedure for drawing attention to these problems is raising discussion on ANI or alternatively opening an RFC. That is why blocking Giano in the circumstances was a borderline decision (though I can see the logic to it). I am also very unimpressed with people using formalistic language (e.g. 'User blocked' in comments directed at the blocked person) and by people saying they have 'given out' standard warning templates to established users. None of that is in the spirit of the community. The Land 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The written policy is too soft on incivility, IMHO, and I am not at all sure that it reflects actual good practice. Written policy follows good practice (such as we saw here from Kylu), not the other way around. There should be consequences to gross misbehaviour. Be that as it may, as has been said before, this went far beyond a one-off insult or sarcastic remark in the heat of the moment to ugly, gratuitous, premeditated, and repeated personal attacks. Giano arrived at Lar's talk page unannounced to insult him. That is clearly disruptive. I am very surprised and disappointed to see admins effectively condoning Giano's quite outrageous behaviour - there is now no incentive for him to stop it or desist in future - and undermining sound admin action by Kylu. It is quite obvious from the above discussion that there would have been no consensus to overturn the block if it had been discussed here first. Again, I believe Kylu should be commended for firm but relatively conservative action. Metamagician3000 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Well done Kylu. --kingboyk 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Finding this thread here is no surprise to me. In my conversations with Giano yesterday I got the impression that he wanted to keep a controversy going and wanted to push the envelope to see how far he could go. His edit to as user who had last conversed with him a full 20 hours earlier, is the clearest indication of this to me (why wait so long unless you need a new sparring partner?). I think much can be learned by how someone reacts when they are blocked. Do they ask for an unblock and apologize, or do they go on a personal attack spree? Even if one believes that 48 hours is too long, I think it would have been better to let Giano to have the first opportunity to request the unblock (he was offline the whole time), and proceed based on how he behaves when he does. NoSeptember 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think I've tried my best to be unfaliling civil in this whole affair (feedback welcome), even soliciting further input after others warned Giano, but I do think he crossed the line. I did not ask anyone to block, I was just going to let him go on. That said, I am not sure I agree that unblocking him without discussion here first and also without an unblock request by him was the best approach. Needless to say, despite the fact that this might well earn me undying emnity from Giano (which point I think bears noting as something that's inappropriate) I support this block. But of course, I'm biased (and naiive, stupid, a fool, incompetent and devious as well, apparently, according to Giano). ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should remind all involved that Lar and Giano have interacted amicably for a long time. Further, WP:NPA is only a policy that says, "Be nice." There are no sanctions adherent. The point is that one of the things that Giano has been irritated about, if I may be so bold, is the way that people have been tossing out blocks and such for "not nice" and "I don't like that." The block is, to some degree, gasoline on a fire. Speaking for myself, I think a lot more talking folks down is necessary and a lot less blocking of well-established folks for getting angry. Geogre 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I love Geogre like clotted cream loves scones, but I'm disturbed by this growing trend to treat Wikipedia as a tea party where we are supposed to pretend to have not heard when someone has acted like a complete prat, as Giano has in this case. A brief block for a cooling-off period is not only good for the encyclopedia, but good for the user, as it's letting them know where the boundaries are. My only criticism of the block in this case is that 2 days was, in my opinion, too long. But a few hours would have sent the message and given Giano a chance to reconsider his prattish behavior. I know we all want to be nice guys, mes amis, but it's truly OK to send someone outside of the room if they're throwing a temper tantrum. Take off the white gloves and be willing to get your hands a little dirty once in a while. Nandesuka 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry. I just thought 48 hr was long for cooling. 3 hr might do, but...look, what I wanted to wag my finger over wasn't any of that, and certainly not the fine point of what's cooling and what simmering. I just wanted to warn folks about incivility blocks with well established users. It's a tough and thick soup we ... drink or something... when we get into that. I'm glad Lar is ready to forgive, and I don't condone or support Giano's loss of temper, but I really hate NPA blocks. Geogre 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to do exactly that (talking him down) as did others, as can be seen on his talk page. Sometimes it doesn't work. NoSeptember 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    The corollary being well-established editors should know when to step back from posting when they are angry. I understand Giano's anger, but if he cannot discuss matters without calling someone (who themselves is a well-established editor) the laundry list of slights he threw at Lar then he is being disruptive. I wouldn't have blocked for it personally, and I certainly wouldn't have unblocked without discussing it with Kylu (another well-established editor). Syrthiss 13:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) note this was intended as a reply to geogre, but the vagaries of edit conflicts made it appear far below Syrthiss[reply]

    To Geogre: (3x edit conflict!) We used to interact amicably. I would not characterise his interaction with me in this affair as "amicable" but the shoe is entirely on his foot I feel, as I have, in my view, remained civil and open to input (feedback welcome). I'm happy to forgive and forget though, if he returns to being amicable and stops behaving in a manner that I feel is incivil and uncalled for. Forgiveness is something that we could use more of around here. Giano's anger is based on his being wronged, the wrongee not apologising or showing any acknowledgement of wrongness and Giano's subsequent inability (justified or not) to forgive. Forgiveness even when you don't get an apology might be a good thing sometimes instead of holding grudges. My expectation here, unfortunately, is that Giano will add me to the list of those he holds grudges against, which is really too bad. Also I think there was a lot of trying to talk Giano down from several admins (and myself) before he got this block. I note his friends were notably absent in trying to talk him down though. Where were they? 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

    Well, for my part, I knew nothing of it until I saw this. No kidding. I'm terribly uniformed, and usually about as helpful in a dispute as a bowling ball at a baseball game. Still.... Geogre 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingboyk and Syrthiss both seem to think I unblocked without discussing it with Kylu first, which is not the case. See User talk:Kylu, and especially [46] "If anyone unblocks him, I have no problems with it, but I'd still encourage him to voluntarily not edit until he's finished introspection. If you're an admin, you're free to do so also." I'd also ask people to take a closer look at the timing of the block in relation to the height of the incilivity -- it was three hours after Giano's last post and more than 12 since his last post to User talk:Lar. That said, am I entirely confident I made the right decision? No. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, then I rescind that point. :) Syrthiss 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Captain Obvious here again with some perspective. We are involved in a rather radioactive Rfa now featuring a highly controversial candidate. A certain level of sparks should be expected and allowed for. Moreover, Giano was one of the main principles WRONGED by said candidate. He is entitled to express some anger, even if he wasnt one of the most prolific and best editors on this 'pedia (which to my mind means he is even more entitled to have his mild eccentricities indulged). What I truly find disturbing about this mess is, most of those harassing and threatening Giano, are from the opposite camp in Carnildo's Rfa. It is as if they are trying to bully and intimidate him into withdrawing his opposition and it looks as if they may have finally succeeded:[47]. Here's another obvious fact, Kylu, who wasn't even a member of Wikipedia during Carni's last, failed, Rfa, decides to play the politeness police and charge into a situation she knows next to nothing about, pass judgement on my old nemesis and ban him for an excessive time period. In doing so she made an already bad situation, which was already starting to cool off, even worse. She should at the very least get a harsh scolding from the more experienced and (presumably) more fair minded admins. But this is not the case. I'm increasingly appalled by the way admins here mistreat not only new but veteran contributors. Without editors like Giano, Panairjdde, Sam Spade and even Ghirlandajo, this place would be a much bigger joke than it already is. I just spent the last several hours trying to improve one my my friend's articles...opppsie I meant one of the PROJECT's articles. I did so out of friendship, to keep a promise I made and because I believe that the Wiki (sub) project of which we are both members is one of the few things left here which still works and is worthwhile. I did not do it because I believe that I'm contributing to some bold new experiment in human knowledge nor to help make "Jimbo's dream" a reality. And I certainly did not do it because I still believe this is an enjoyable and encouraging environment in which to work or even to visit anymore. Especially when those who have little to do with actually BUILDING this place take such an active role in harassing, threatening and discouraging those few who still do. So much for making "the internet not suck". The "revolution" is dead...and this glorious, bold new experiment has become just another shitty website. I would be surprised if after the way he has been mistreated, Giano ever again contributes here in any meaningful way. Niz job gang. Admins need to see beyond the heat of the moment and take a user's contribution history and edit count into account, before they start handing down threats and disproportionate punishments, like circus clowns doling out cotton candy and balloons.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiya! Just to clarify a couple points: I actually invited Bunchofgrapes to unblock if he felt it appropriate, so no wheel warring, and I certainly don't have any problems with the action. While I appreciate RDH's concern in the matter, I'm not sure I agree that just because one has a high edit count and numerous contributions, that they're immune from following policy like other users. That's a slope ripe for abuse, in my opinion. If it much matters, I did consult other admins on IRC before issuing the block, though as I'm the one responsible for the action, I'll not mention them by name. Ja mata ne. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Carnildo's RfA is so depressing; it really makes me question my involvement with this project. Maybe it's time to burn the bridges. El_C 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My Userpage

    Can someone pleeeeeeeeeeeease semi-protect my userpage and talk page ASAP? In the last hour alone my talk page (not to mention other pages I've edited) have been vandalised with defamatory statements by 6 seperate sockpuppets of VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

    That's not even to mention the other 20 sockpuppets who've done essentially the same thing over the last 5 days. Thanks in advance. -- pm_shef 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okeydoke, so they're not trolling my talkpage now thanks to the protection, but they've moved into the main space, [54] and [55]. We just gonna keep blocking them as they show up? Is there nothing we can do proactively? -- pm_shef 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Enormous quantity of image vandalism

    From two users: LegionUltraBoy (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and Spartanpass (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). It's not in the contribs, of course, but in the upload log: [56]. Unless I'm missing something obvious here (and a lot of album covers look like vandalism to me) -- this is a huge string of unreverted vandalism and it's been going on for a while. Can someone else assist me with this? I'm going to start reverting. Antandrus (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone want to help me delete the bad revisions? Otherwise this idiot kid will just make another account and revert back again. Thanks for any help, Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll jump in and delete a few, sure. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I reverted up to the point where I started finding your reversions, Antandrus. :( I wish I could help further. Ryūlóng 04:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. I've finished with LegionUltraBoy; next up. Antandrus (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on it. Mak (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Thanks.  :-) Antandrus (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Any image upload vandalism should be cleared from the following accounts, which appear to be a sockfarm. (And the accounts probably should be blocked if they are not already) DKsRule (talk · contribs · logs) GreenLanternDC (talk · contribs · logs) BlazingLasers (talk · contribs · logs) CentipediaNES (talk · contribs · logs) KidIcarusNES (talk · contribs · logs) CaptainMarvelDC (talk · contribs · logs) GlobalGUTS (talk · contribs · logs) CthulhuCommandsYou (talk · contribs · logs) GottaCatchEmAll (talk · contribs · logs) ChildrensCrusade (talk · contribs · logs) IWashMyselfWithaRagOnaStick (talk · contribs · logs) FallOutChoi (talk · contribs · logs) DoubtingElDandy (talk · contribs · logs) BlackestNight (talk · contribs · logs) I Totally Rule (talk · contribs · logs) Jefferson Carship (talk · contribs · logs) GoGoGobots (talk · contribs · logs) ChicaGLoFire (talk · contribs · logs) ChicaGLoBulls (talk · contribs · logs) ChicaGLoTribune (talk · contribs · logs) JeffersonCarship (talk · contribs · logs) FallOutBoySucks (talk · contribs · logs) HerkimerCountyBlowhole (talk · contribs · logs) LaserChallenge (talk · contribs · logs) After a short while, I'm sure you'll figure out how I got that list. But I'm going with BEANS otherwise. If I were you I'd torch the talk edits as well. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. Took me a few ... seconds to figure it out.

    Kevin, GTBacchus, Ryulong, Makemi, and if there was anyone I missed, thank you for helping out. Antandrus (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User Talk

    A user, Snowbound (talk · contribs), was given numerous warnings for anti-social behaviour, civility and warning removals by GIen (talk · contribs) (an administrator) after he/she posted a very confronting and incivil message on my talk page. He/she did this because I reverted his blanking of warnings off his/her talk page. Since, Snowbound has archived his/her warnings off the page, which I have no objections to. However, he/she added a link to the archive box which was incorrect, so I fixed it for him/her, per WP:ARCHIVE. I also left a helpful edit summary, as well as a message, detailing the fixes I made to conform with the Wikipedia policy linked previously.

    This user has since posted a message on GIen's talk accusing me of Wikistalking, as well as stating "I have previously requested that the user Daniel Bryant do not edit my talk page". He/she refuses to acknowledge the fact that anyone can post anything, within Wikipedia policy, on any user's talk page. I am under no Arbitration Commitee sanction at all, and this user needs to be reminded about these regulations, as well as to not falsley accuse people of stalking another's talk page, however I do not wish to inflame this user's misconcieved thoughts that I shouldn't post on their talk page.

    Considering the serious warnings handed out by an impartial administrator, any administrator who reviews this may wish to take further action under Wikipedia's blocking policy. However, I believe a sufficient heads-up to procedure should be sufficient. Daniel.Bryant 06:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue has been dealt with, however Snowbound (talk · contribs) is currently not contributing to Wikipedia. If he/she consents, all will be fine. If he/she doesn't, then this discussion will have to be re-opened. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Searching for "Chamoux"

    Yesterday I successfully put the article "Benoît Chamoux" into production but when I search on "Chamoux" the article is not listed. Is there something that I need to do to update the indexing for search? Thanks, CCC Cclauss 08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Chamoux isn't the rarest name - there's a Jean Chamoux, photographer, Matthieu Chamoux, some kind of producer, Chamoux-sur-Gelon canton... we'd need a complex disambiguation page rather than a simple redirect, which may be more work than Cclauss is signing up for.
    2. And even that won't solve the "Search" issue Cclauss is asking about. The issue with that is that the Wikipedia Search database can take several days to be fully updated with new articles. The only real cure for that is patience. It will come, grasshopper, it will come. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've created a disambiguation page for the two main Chamoux articles (Benoît and Jean). I normally don't include pages that don't have the disambigued word in their title in the disambiguation pages I create (so no links to the producer etcetera), but everyone's free to add those if they feel it is necessary of course. Fram 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT violations by Polaron (talk · contribs), massive page moves

    Polaron (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved dozens of pages, in violation of WP:POINT. Japanese cities in the form cityname, prefecturename were massively moved to cityname City. Polaron is claiming WP:NC(CN) should override WP:MOS-JA, but many users oppose this, and discussion/polling is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Polaron has started a similar poll in Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Seattle, Washington to drop state names from the cities, so he is on a personal crusade to drop state (and prefecture) names from ALL cities in the world. Please advise if this IS, in fact, a violation of WP:POINT. Also, how can we reverse his massive changes?--Endroit 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If the redirect page has not been edited, non-admins can simply reverse the redirect without any trouble. Hbdragon88 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    His moves are clearly against consensus on the Japanese MOS. I have reverted all of them. Please let me know if he attempts a massive page move episode like this again. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbiv block evasion

    Now under a week-long block for pretending that the ArbCom decision in his case doesn't apply to him, Dbiv (talk · contribs) has created a sockpuppet (DavidBoothroyd (talk · contribs)) and is trying to redirect the User Page thrown up by his IP (User:80.177.212.6, also blocked) and alter his own message left on my Talk Page ("Remove personal attack", says his edit summary: nice of him to admit it upfront). Minor, but still irritating. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No-one's blocked the sockpuppet... shall I? The Land 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton, aren't you an admin?? I've blocked the sockpuppet. If Dbiv ceases to use it to evade the block on his main account then there's no reason to believe it's a malicious sockpuppet, and it can be unblocked. However, he doesn't seem to realise that even though he is an ex-admin the rules still apply to him. The Land 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Calton is not an admin re his talk page header. ;) Syrthiss 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I thought he was. The Land 14:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never hidden that fact: Say it loud! I'm a non-admin and proud mildly content! --Calton | Talk 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tragic cases like this raise the chicken or egg question about whether desysopped people are pushed over the edge by their rejection or whether the community made a good call. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The original block was specifically for editing Peter Tatchell, from which Dbiv is banned. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated purpose of the sock is to protect the article on himself, David Boothroyd. Although creating the sock is a techincal violation of his week-long block, it would be unfortunate if someone took advantage of Dbiv's situation to inappropriately edit the David Boothroyd article. As long as the sock sticks to that purpose, I find it hard to get worked up over it. It should be tagged as a friendly sock, should not edit any other articles while Dbiv is blocked, and should never edit Peter Tatchell. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It is unfortunate that that was necessary. I feel blocking his sockpuppet was slightly more the letter of policy than the spirit. Equally, he is being deliberately disruptive (though in a minor way) and he should know better. It all fits with the pattern of behaviour that led to his desysopping.
    If User:DavidBoothroyd were not be used as a tool to evade blocks, I would be quite happy to unblock it (at least at times when Dbiv is not blocked). The Land 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    No, I'm not an admin by any stretch -- just an amateur busybody -- and whether the sockpuppet is indefbanned or not is of no concern to me. Being blocked for the duration of his existing block IS -- especially if it stops his oddball gameplaying, like reporting me to WP:PAIN...for not letting him remove HIS OWN personal attack from my own talk page. [57]. I'm wondering if he's going mental. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical question: I thought User talk:80.177.212.6 was semi-protected. I thought that meant brand-new users (like User:DavidBoothroyd couldn't edit it. No? --Calton | Talk 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "New" in this case means 4 or 5 days I think. USer:David Boothroyd was created 10 days ago. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DavidBoothroyd isn't a brand new account - it was created on the 21st of this month, not the 31st (confusing, as the only activity has been on those two dates). So it predates the week-long block. I'd suggest that the account is blocked for a shorter period, but not indefinitely - there is a legitimate use for it, and David has been open from the start about the fact that it's a sock/alternate account (see the edit history). --ajn (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The plot thickens. Dbiv has removed the notice saying I'd blocked his sockpuppet. I restored it; he did it again; I have protected his talk page. Also very regrettable. The Land 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be really nice if we could de-escalate this situation. CanadianCeasar's question is highly relevant. I've seen several former admins turn on wikipedia and we should do as little as possible to contribute to that. In the spirit of being nice and assuming good faith I would like to ask that User:DavidBoothroyd be unblocked and for everyone to leave him alone. Yes, its a technical violation and Dbiv is evading his block, but if Calton had left him alone then quite possibly the only edits would have been the redirects he set up. I also don't have a problem with redirecting the IP talk page to Dbiv's as long as it really is a stable IP; I have seen this arrangement before with noncontroversial editors and no one objected. The bottom line is, if Dbiv uses the David Boothroyd account for other than its stated purpose, that will become immediately clear and action can be taken then. With his stated refusal to accept the article ban Dbiv is on the wrong path but the last thing we should do is push (or even nudge) him farther down it. I know my opinion is not technically correct either, but its how I feel at this time. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I probably agree: I have unblocked the sock and unprotected the talk page. Let's hope for the best from David. The Land 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be speaking about stuff that ain't my business, Thatcher, but here it goes: rather than an appeal by Dbiv (that was rejected by ArbCom), why not make a motion in prior case and replace the article ban with a probation or a revert parole? If Dbiv will really want to improve the article and not go edit-warrying again, that's just fine for WP. If not, well he'll be blocked. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Without reviewing the arbitration case, I'm sure that such remedies were considered. (You can look yourself; it would be on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop if I typed that correctly.) And I suspect it's much too early for the arbitrators to agree to entertain such a motion. Actually, I agree with the article ban, not because the content of his edits was bad, but because the manner in which he made the edits was bad, and his recent behavior does not fill me with confidence that he would have adhered to the 11th-hour compromise he worked out with Irishpunktom. Since he does not agree with the article ban, an escalating series of conflicts is not entirely unforseeable. In the meantime, since Dbiv could just as easily create User:QwertyJoe to defend the article on himself, we're probably better off allowing him to do it openly.Thatcher131 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm obviously not the best person to argue on this case. I would just like to state for the record that such a remedy was not considered at the workshop. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Well, after subsequent events, it's hard for me to imagine the arbitrators considering such a motion without several months of quiet, polite productive edits. Dbiv can edit the Tatchell talk page, of course, although that's apparently not good enough for him. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If one were to tell a friend to please not borrow the car for awhile because they smoked in it, and they borrowed it again, it makes sense to take away the keys for awhile. We all have a certain amount of respect for Dbiv, but when people step beyond bounds of what's acceptable, even if they're nice about it (e.g. using an ashtray in a smoking-verboten place), we should not permit that. Allowing them to do so if they paint the cigarettes like straws is not kosher -- neither is changing the rules so they can smoke. Dbiv should show better sense than this, and we shouldn't be bending over backwards to permit or reward broken behaviour. Please reblock the sock and let him wait. --Improv 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Improv is right (I never meant my clarification of the block reason to imply that the sock should not also be blocked). Members of the Arbitration Committee specifically expressed severe reservations about Dbiv's conduct during the arbitration case, specifically his insertion of his own point of view into one of the proposed findings of fact (on a page that is reserved for arbitrators and clerks). His conduct since the case ended includes two separate repeated instances of edit warring on the Peter Tatchell article from which he is banned, in what he openly describes as a direct challenge to the Arbitration Committee's authority.
    Whatever injustice may have been perpetrated in this case, it could not be remedied by subjecting Dbiv to special treatment. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. One question though - if Tony blocked Dbiv for one week at 21:35, 27 August 2006 (BST), how has he managed to edit since then in the past few days? I'm thinking an unblock to reblock is in order, as this seems to be a block that has not taken hold. I agree with the de-escalation sentiments, this is a previously prolific and valuable contributor. However, he is actively sticking two fingers up to an ArbCom ruling and using 3 accounts to circumvent that and resultant blocks for violating the ruling. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked editors still have the ability to edit their talk pages; Since 27 August, Dbiv has edited only his talk page while logged in at that account. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, of course. A complete misreading of which accounts / sockpuppets / IP's edited which pages and when. My mistake. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing for special treatment. As I understand it, socks used to evade blocks should themselves be blocked. This is normally considered egregious misconduct by the blocked user. However, the fact that a sock has been used to evade a block does not necessarily mean that it will be in future. If Dbiv can avoid the temptation to wind people up with his sockpuppet, then that is a valuable step to his addressing the problems that led to him being blocked in the first place. If he continues to evade his block, then we can just issue more blocks on one or both accounts with relatively little effort. (I hope that what I maen is at least vaguely clear). The Land 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Syphonbyte (talk · contribs) block evasion as Gotem (talk · contribs)?

    User:Syphonbyte was recently indefinitely blocked for creating and utilizing disruptively impostor sockpuppet accounts of User:Cyde all confirmed by RFCU. This case looked over but relative to this diff wherein Gotem states, "I am also Syphonbyte" it appears that he's now editing as Gotem (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). User:Gotem is denying this but User:Syphonbyte repetitively denied utilizing sockpuppets and this is likely a further example of this. Perhaps someone with a mop could take a look at this? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty obvious sock. Indefinately blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pagania

    Reguest for Page Protection failed. User:Afrika paprika continously enforces his edits to the Pagania article and refuses to discuss as can be seen on Talk:Pagania. User_talk:Afrika paprika page agrees with my previous statements (open refusal to discuss and usage of personal attacks). I suggest that a 24h block will make the user discuss and stop the edit war. Thanks in advance to whoever helped stop this edit war! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I too request protection but from user 'HolyRomanEperor' who continues to push for his nationalistic version. Althought the consensus was reached and user 'Pannonian' wrote an excellent article the user'HRE' after being deblocked/unbanned returns again to start another flame/edit war. I suggest something to be done about this person, thank you. Afrika 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccready (talk · contribs) reblocked

    As a goodwill gesture and an act of kindness, I shortened Mccready's 7 day block to 2 days. The blocking admin was fine with the change. (see talk page discussion for reason). Immediately after returning to editing he made highly uncivil/PA edits and continued his original negative disruptive editing style that caused his block. I reblocked him. Mccready now is claiming that my block should be reviewed because I have a grudge against him. Please review and change if consensus supports it. [58] --FloNight 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Duncharris has unblocked, so apparently that's at least one who thought it was too much. I wouldn't have unblocked, myself, but I can't disagree with it too much either I suppose. The block sent the message it was intended to send. The message does not appear to have been received, but maybe there's little to be done about that. Friday (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RD

    We really need a bot for archiving and transcluding old questions, is there anyone who has an open source bot, they wouldn't mind sharing, that could be adapted for our needs? Crypticbot was supposedly going to go open source, but never did. If anyone has bot source code that might be adapted to suite our needs, please contact me on my talk page--VectorPotential71.247.243.173 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk Page message removal

    During a recent WP:3RR ban Hardouin took it on himself to send emails to several admins "warning" them of my "behaviour", and, so it would seem, making the accusation that I am a stalker/reverter when nothing of the sort is true. Ending his WP:3RR break with another revert, he left accusatory messages on the article talk page - I answered these on his talk page. Later under the cover of a declared 'archiving', he effaced my first answering message, then another refuting the accusation itself - and has removed at least three since, even a one-line messages indicating where the removed posts are, as they were effaced, not archived, and I am seriously considering a WP:RFC case. This is certainly not what once could call 'Wiki-fun'. The effaced messages are here. THEPROMENADER 16:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What do mean he "effaced" your first message? Please provide a link. In general, if he removes your messages from his talk page, I wouldn't talk to him there. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, perhaps that wasn't the right word - the only place you could have found the message was in the page history. The 'archiving' is here but the archives are here - messages gone. If you'll look through the page history you'll see that through today I tried twice to reinstall them and later to simply leave a link - all removed. THEPROMENADER 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest having a look at ThePromander's block log and at ThePromenader's hostile messages at User talk:Captain scarlet (the whole page, not just the last messages) to better understand the sort of harassment I am being subjected to. Then the purpose of his complaint here will become quite clear. Hardouin 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) OK I see. The reason I asked for more info was that my response depends on what you meant. Had he edited you comments to make it look like you said something that you did not, well that's one thing. But if he has simply deleted your comments, then just let the matter go. It's his talk page. Hee doesn't have to archive messages from you. Defend yourself somewhere else, i.e. not on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright then, thanks. I'll keep the messages on my own talk page. THEPROMENADER 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I had thought there was some sort of convention against this sort of behaviour. Sorry for your time. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it is generally considered bad taste, editors do have the right to remove non-warning messages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Abstract Idiot - Compromised account?

    I've just blocked Abstract Idiot (talk · contribs) for 192 hours for pagemove vandalism. His last edit before today was weeks ago, so I was wondering if his account has been compromised, and if there is any better solution to just blocking for a short period? Thanks, — FireFox (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2006

    • I'd block indefinitely, if it is compromised then the real owner can still contact us, if not then the block stands. Just a couple of observations though, the first edits were only at the beginning of the month. The first edits was to install popups in their monobook.js, so I would suggest this wasn't a brand new user per se. --pgk(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 155.247.166.28

    This IP has been blocked three times previously, and is still regularly vandalizing pages with various nonsense and outright homophobic slurs which have nothing to do with the articles in question. Perhaps a longer blocking period than a day or two is required to discourage this person from amusing themselves with idiotic behavior. Unigolyn 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Shared IP with many good contributions; short blocks can be made where necessary, but it looks like that vandal is gone for now. In the future, please, report these to WP:AIV. Thanks :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't done much in the last few days. I'm hesitant about warning them, since the vandalism died down awhile ago and the wrong person may get the wrong message. Don't report them to WP:AIV unless they do it again. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stampedem

    Stampedem continues to troll the Eliot Shapleigh article, and is ademently defending the presence of the Dee Margo article, although I have already explained that candidate pages are pretty routinely sent to the bit bucket. I need an IP address linked to this user. I believe these contributions are coming directly from campaign headquarters. Somnabot 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sexyafterdelivery@yahoo.com

    I was gonna take this to WP:AIV, but I figured someone would contest it. Do we really want someone with this name showing up in the edit histories of articles? And, what is the policy regarding email usernames? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No not really, I'd be happy to username block it. General policy on email usernames:
    "E-mail addresses: Using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. Additionally, usernames containing "____@wikipedia.org", etc. are blocked on sight, as such a name may misleadingly imply that a user is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no official policy regarding whether to block non-"wikipedia" email addresses, so it is left to the discretion of the blocking admin. Note to new user patrollers: you may use the template {{WelcomeEmail}} to recommend a username change to such users, or {{UsernameBlockedEmail}} to inform them of a block." (From WP:U). Petros471 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone else beat me to it (block). Petros471 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You people are too sensitive. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Centralised discussion on CFD v DRV?

    A thread I posted to got archived without any response. See IncidentArchive130. I'm having difficulty finding out where the current discussion on this is taking place. Can anyone help? Thanks. Carcharoth 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chalklit73

    Chalklit73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a vandalism-only account. I've only blocked for an hour, but, if someone feels a longer block is appropriate, please be my guest. (This is my first block which isn't a repeat of a previous block for the same type of condition.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed block to indefinite. If he wants to create Chalklit74 or Chalklit 73, it's up to him, after the IP block drops off. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page spelling error

    Could someone fix the spelling of "receives" on the featured article notice on the main page. Thanks. –Shoaler (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry and 3rr

    Would like some eyes on the following problem: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jessefriend; 3 editors and 2 IP's have made the same edit to the Jesse Macbeth article, reversing the meaning of the intro without discussion. Between the editors, the page has been identically reverted 14 times in the last 24 hours (3rr violations by 2 of the editors, 3rd blocked immediately as imposter). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Deepthroat123_reported_by_User:Mmx1_(Result:24_hour_block). --Mmx1 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is now semi-protected. Naconkantari 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of reverters & actions

    — ERcheck (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Netscott

    For weeks now User:Netscott has been agitating concerning this image uploaded by SlimVirgin. He kept insisting that the image be as "Anti-Semitic", against the objections of SlimVirgin and other editors. Netscott then tried to have it deleted as a derivative image; though the photographer had released it, Netscott claimed the poster in the photograph itself hadn't been properly released. Jkelly then proposed that the photograph be used under the photographer's release, and the poster image on the photograph itself under Fair Use. Netscott then objected, saying that we couldn't claim Fair Use on the poster unless we knew the name of the artist. SlimVirgin then went and discovered the name of the artist, and added it on the image page. Netscott then claimed it wasn't Fair Use based on "Counterexample 4". When this was shot down, he complained about the name of the image, insisting it was making claims of anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin then uploaded the image under a new "neutral" name that didn't mention anti-Semitism. Netscott then kept trying to attach the new image to the old name which contained the name anti-Semitism, trying again to make that linkage. When this was reverted, Netscott then tried to associate the name of the artist with ANSWER, a controversial group, and continually kept associating the poster creator's name with anti-Semitism on all sorts of Talk: pages and message boards, trying to get the image deleted again, ostensibly out of concerns about WP:BLP, but in actuality excacerbating any BLP concerns, since it was Netscott alone who kept making this connection, in a dozen different places. SlimVirgin then removed the name of the poster creater from the image page; at this point Netscott then insisted on listing the image as a Copyright violation, claiming the artist was no longer attributed.

    The image itself is quite famous; it's been reproduced and discussed on a number of famous blogs and websites, and has been discussed in the media. Netscott's purpose here seems to be to troll as much as possible, agitating in any way possible to get the image deleted, while possibly endangering Wikipedia itself by deliberately associating an individual's name with anti-Semitism. In his relatively brief Wikipedia career Netscott has been blocked 8 times already. In fact he would still be under his last block, for a week, if not for the fact that an admin involved in a content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and re-blocked for a day instead. I'm suggesting a 1 week block at this point, though I'm open to the idea of an indefinite block as well. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netscott was blocked for a week on August 25 by User:Blnguyen for persistent 3RR violations, but unfortunately user:Bastique, who was involved in that particular content dispute with Netscott, reduced the block to 24 hours. Otherwise none of this trolling would have happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was mildly involved in some of the early issues, but would also support a week long block for persistent trolling and disruption. Given the user's other productive edits I do not think an indefinite block is called for at this point. JoshuaZ 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Total misrepresentation of the facts here. My efforts relative to this image has been to properly establish neutral point of view relative to it. This is what my first edit relative to this issue consisted of. Without any discussion whatsoever SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reverted my addition. Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox we're not to be making statements about what a given piece of content is (this is clearly spelled out in WP:NOR). On every turn my efforts in this direction have been thwarted. I even went so far as to make a guide illustrative of how a caption needs to read in order for Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view. Unfortunately User:SlimVirgin and to a lesser extent User:Jayjg have demonstrated ownership on this article to the point that virtually all of my good faith edits were reverted. SlimVirgin even went so far as to say that SHE had to verify my edits. ???? With that image as the lead for new anti-Semitism and with no in article text about reliable and verifiable sources statements included Wikipedia is seriously in jeapordy of libel relative to branding this artist's work anti-Semitic and in consequence the artist himself. A good number of editors have been supportive of my efforts including User:AYArktos, User:Bastique, User:Gmaxwell, User:Fastfission (in WikiEn-i) , User:Liftarn, User:Geni to name a few. A number of responses to an RfC I started also were supportive of my suggestions. All of the editing I've done has been in good faith. I've made quite a few efforts to discuss this matter to try to come to a consensus and I've been shut down on all sides by these two editors. Here is the BLP discussion wherein I expressed the very real case that Wikipedia is in libel relative to the artist by publishing his work as the lead image and thereby implying that it is an example of new anti-Semitism (particularly when there's no sources cited in the article as saying that). Both SlimVirgin [59] and Jayjg [60] have themselves expressed concern about libel by contravening Wikipedia:Fair use policy #10 in removing the artist's name from the image page itself (for an image to qualify for fair use an artist or copyright holder must be attributed). I'll have more to say on this but I need to step out for a bit. (→Netscott) 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolute nonsense. Geni, Gmaxwell, and FastFission did not support Netscott, and in fact several people questioned why he was posting to the mailing list about it. (Geni's position was that we needed the name of the copyright holder, and we now have it.) Liftarn did support Netscott, because Liftarn also wants the image gone at any cost. The image has been discussed with Jkelly and the matter settled.
    The issue is not the image now, but the trolling. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are using the word "trolling" to discount my efforts (in a very propagandistic way). The reality is that I spent the better part of the day replacing deprecated templates and editing on the infrastructure of the WP:BLP/N (like that shortcut itself) noticeboard (and {{editabuselinks}} template). I even made an announcement about it. It was only when you didn't transfer the old image's talk page to the newly named image that a dispute arose. I even sought comments about that. (→Netscott) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's editing style appears disruptive and tendencious. El_C 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that such disruptive behavior should be stopped. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just asked Netscott to walk away from the article and image in question. Waiting for his response.--MONGO 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just blocked him for 48 hrs. He still should be able to edit his Talk page. Please LMK if you feel it was inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit conflicted for the fifth time - I was the original blocker and was briefed about an IRC conversation which lead to the unblock after Netscott was unblocked. At no time was I informed that Bastique was himself involved in editing the part of the article in question let alone the general sphere of Jewish editing. I am quite unimpressed by the excessive levels of agitation which have been employed, in particular when he tags the pic as a copyvio of wikipedia. Leaning 1 week, definitely not indef, as Netscott is a serious contributor. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not suggesting an indef block, but I take issue with the serious contributor thing. Looking through his contribs, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree entirely with El_C and Blnguyen. The editing style emplyed by Netscott was overly aggressive, and he has been disruptive in this matter. I also note that I have asked Humus that Netscott be unblocked in the interim so that he can fairly address issues raised here. -- Samir धर्म 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Samir, if he is unblocked to discuss it, he'll just use this as the latest plaftorm for the disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should he disrupt here, SlimVirgin, he will be blocked. But I think it is only fair for him to get a chance to say his side civilly -- Samir धर्म 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It should not take a village to upload an image to Wikipedia. That Netscott has made it so troubles me. I support a week block. Netscott, you can email me with your concerns and ideas about the image and I will follow up. FloNight 04:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Humus sapiens for unblocking me. I will not post outside of this thread for the next 48 hours out of respect for you and Samir (the scope) (obviously it's other's perogative if I'm to be re-blocked). Seriously if I had not been treated with such disregard and lack of dignity when I first started editing on this article things probably wouldn't have come to this. At every turn my edits have been reverted first discussed second. How does that foster a good collaborative environment? (→Netscott) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so you tried to get the image deleted under 5 different bogus rationales because you were treated with "disregard and lack of dignity"? Thank you for comfirming your WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's not much left for that image. Its not 'free', but its no longer tagged as such anymore anyways. Netscott tagging {{copyvio}} with the url point to a revision of the image page is a rather strange way to dispute the image, but only thing left is dispution of the fair use rationale. Kevin_b_er 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayjg, is it improper to insist that images are in compliance with Fair use policy? Is it improper to insist that Wikipedia not defame an artist with poorly sourced statements about his art being "anti-Semitic" (particularly not including such statements in the article). When I came to the article there was virtually no relevant text in it's caption relative to the image. Here's what the caption read when I started to call for NPOV on it:

    "A placard at a February 16, 2003, anti-war rally in San Francisco. Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com. [61]"

    Essentially the image was "there" as the perfect example of new anti-Semitism. Then after my efforts and comments by User:Gimmetrow about WP:CAP SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) added some text to at least establish the image's relevance to the rest of the article like so:

    Photographed at an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003, this placard mixes anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist and anti-globalization imagery with some classic anti-Semitic motifs. Photograph taken by zombie of zombietime.com. [8]

    But where are the reliable sources in that caption? This sets up negative details relative to the artist and as such reliable and verifiable sources need to be written into the article in support of such negative details. (→Netscott) 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's determined here that I'm to be reblocked for any length of time then I would just recommend indef. blocking me with the {{indefblock}} tag and all. I probably spend too much time on the project as it is and an indef. block would just motivate me to fully step away from it. I've put too much effort into this project to be treated so disrespectfully and with a lack of dignity the way that I have been in this circumstance particularly by User:SlimVirgin. The funny thing is that you almost can't go anywhere now on Wikipedia and not see an example my work in one of my creations. (→Netscott) 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some of the so-called anti-imperialists we have today. "A war for Israel." So ignorant of the nature of imperialist-dependence, always up for the instant counterfeit Jew gratification. Netscott, you are editing tendenciously because you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy. That caption does not need reliable sources, it highlights what the image evokes, and some interpretive leeway is afforded there. It's unrealistic to expect one to find a source which says these things about that image, which makes that line of reasoning tendencious. Similarly, invoking WP:BLP is also tendencious, as it was in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El_C 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In reference to the above, I feel that Netscott has been editing in an escessively agitatory and diruptive manner unconducive to teh improvement and production of quality articles, so I have enacted a block of 7 days, as this has been exhibited previously in many 3RR blocks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Netscott is also the hidden hand behind User:His excellency’s evidence against established editors in his case before the Arbitration Committee. Netscott has cynically encouraged and used His excellency to rid Wikipedia of Jewish and insufficiently anti-Jewish editors, who he claims are using “Wikipedia as a tool to spread propaganda.”.Postmonger 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mystar's Repeated Personal Attacks

    Mystar has violated wikipedia's policy against personal attacks several times and contines to do so despite tactful requests for him to alter his behavior, notification of the offical policy against it, warnings to stop in Talk:Terry Goodkind and several warning templates in his user talk page. This comes in the form of rude, hostile and unfounded accusations of misconduct, labeling others liars without proof, name calling and generaly aggresive and belligerent posts targeting specific editors. The majority of these incidents can be found at Talk:Terry Goodkind and Talk: Sword of Truth. His behavior is not only disruptive and rude but hey refuses to heed very patient warnings from other editors. NeoFreak 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    contentious user's edits and refusal to follow WP NPA

    I have warned user Ruthfulbarbarity numerous times in the last few days about his personal attacks and incivility directed towards me - all violations of WP:NPA. Today this user - in an effort to inflame already-high tensions even more, erroneously corrected my spelling of the word 'né' to 'née' (he did this in MY text, section title, and comments) claimed that the word 'né' did not exist, see then personally attacked me again, violating WP:NPA. I pointed out that my usage was correct, and he was wrong, and asked, then demanded that he correct the improper and erroneous edits he made to MY text. Thus far, he has refused. I ask that he be give a much needed and deserved 48 hour (or more) block as remedy - so that he might reflect on his actions - and that we can get some work done. You will find his edit here Ruthfulbarbarity's edit of my text and the general talk page here Talk

    NBGPWS 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    NBGPWS (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was recently blocked for a few violations. This complaint might be considered a form of WP:POINT. I have never heard of anyone complaining about spelling correction as a personal attack. Regardless, spelling is a content argument, not a personal attack. --Tbeatty 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Ruthfulbarbarity's WP:NPA violation "First of all, it's spelled "nee," not that you would actually know that. " NBGPWS 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cretanpride blocked for sockpuppetry

    I have blocked Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one month, since checkuser has confirmed that he has adopted yet another sockpuppet identity (MegasAllexandros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Since I have become involved in the case (previously discussed here) I'm mentioning the block here, in case anyone disputes it or thinks that I have a conflict of interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: MegasAllexandros is contesting the block on his talk page; note that he doesn't exactly didn't immediately deny that he's Cretanpride. I'll let someone else respond to the unblock request. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent MySpace edits

    A rash of IP user(s) from Australia have overtaken the edits on the MySpace article. Among some of their better edits, they continue to reinclude WP:OR and WP:NPOV sections. I marked these as vandalism because of the editor's (or editors') ignoring my edit summary pleas for discussion on the talk page and the lack of any citation on certain claims of criticism and so on. AlphaChimp sent me here claiming my WP:AIV was incorrect because the edits were not obvious vandalism. Can someone take a look at the past few hundred changes (these edits span only a few days but their style is to change 3 letters or a word and hit "Save Changes" making it insidiously difficult to differentiate between WP:OR or WP:NPOV violations and grammar correction). Thanks. ju66l3r 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    59% = consensus?

    Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With more discussion, perhaps a clearer result could ensue - perhaps for a better policy not discussed yet. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=73192965"