Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Indrancroos (talk · contribs)

Indrancroos has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... he has yet been able to bring in any statements of racism that i have made... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings...Kennethtennyson 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for reverting and fixing everything. I think everything is back to normal, and we are having a civil discussion now.--Endroit 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that this person is a highway editor, and has mass moved there too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw that but I am not familiar with the highway debate and what consensus is there. Someone involved with that needs to check those moves. pschemp | talk 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at his contribs and didn't see any recent highway moves, maybe I missed them. I can't be the blocker though as I'm involved. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a while ago though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did they all get sorted? I'd be inclined, at this remove, to not do anything about it, then. Or ask him to help sort them out if they're not, and nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wait since you lost? 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

You got it right first time. Consensus descisions are strongly non-zero sum. In a debate with only rational agents, nobody actually loses. (though some might not be perfectly happy, of course).

If you think that a majority vote is the only solution to resolving this particular dispute, well ... I don't know... but ok, I'll grant you that point for the sake of conversation today. I'm not going to argue with your actions.

But let's agree that it definately isn't consensus! :-)

Kim Bruning 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On many issues, it doesn't matter in the end which decision is made as long as a decision is made. This applies especially to trivial matters. If you check the principles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, you'll see that this is exactly the tack taken by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted an attempt to close that as "no consensus", since the admins in question appear to still be discussing it... For the record, my opinion is that consensus is a goal, not an absolute requirement; when something has come to a boil (as with the hint from arbcom) and we count heads on it, a clear majority is acceptable if it'll just stop the arguing. Shimgray | talk | 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned SPUI (User_talk:SPUI#State_route_naming_conventions_poll) about his try to close and he has replied with an interpretation of ArbCom's directives in this matter that I do not think is supported. If he reverts back to that "rejected" template, I will consider it disruption and will issue a block. His contributions throughout this matter have, in my view, attempted to stymie the functioning of the process to get to an outcome, any outcome so that this trivial matter can be put to bed. ++Lar: t/c 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the remainder of the page be locked from editing to prevent any future vandalism or unwanted editing? I don't think anymore discussion is needed on Part 1 until after the admins cast all of their votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other.

Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas?

Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Arbcom, an arbitrary decision is better than no decision, and per common sense, 59% is better than arbitrary. Accept it, or get banned. Sorry. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote the relevant passage that says I'll be banned please! :-) Kim Bruning 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is one of several Wikipedians who takes the tack that "It ain't a consensus unless it agrees with me!" *Dan T.* 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the only person ever blocked for successfully violating WP:IAR ;-) Kim Bruning 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Ed Poor get blocked for deleting AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. --bainer (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution to this issue: Block anyone who isn't a highway expert. Block anyone who's ever named a highway article wrong. Block anyone who's ever gotten frustrated and made bad edits in the middle of a highway naming dispute. Block anyone who's part of the 59%. The reasoning? Anyone who's made mistakes in the past is likely to make mistakes again, and that constitutes disruption.

Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?

“ Decisions which are made about articles or policies should not be regarded as binding. ... everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later date. Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding. — Wikipedia:No binding decisions ”

That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its supporters are treating it as fully binding, and plan to move all the highway pages once the details are hammered out. --SPUI (T - C) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI: Perhaps if you (and to a lesser extent, others) had collegially worked with everyone else to reach a consensus prior to this, instead of having it have to go to ArbCom, it wouldn't have come to this. It certainly would have wasted far less time on everyone's part. But you and others did not and ArbCom acted. What I see here is disruptive wikilawyering on your part after the fact, trying to block implementation. You need to accept that this is how it's going to play out.

Note that one way to achieve consensus is to block or ban those who are disruptively interfering with the attempt to reach it, until only reasonable people remain. Your contributions to the encyclopedia are enormous. Yet, no less a personage than Jimbo himself has asked you to change your disruptive, contentious ways, remember? No one person is indispensible to this project and if the project has to get along without your positive contributions in order to also get along without your negative contributions, so be it. There are a number of admins who are prepared to block anyone who is contentiously and tendentiously disrupting this process. I suggest you internalise that and move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree emphatically with Lar here. This bloody stupid dispute keeps popping up on WP:AN, AN/I, RfC, and now RfArb. Pick one convention – any convention that's not patent nonsense will do – and get on with all your lives. (It seems that the ArbCom-imposed process has generated such a result. I haven't looked at the poll to see what that result is, but from previous exposure to this issue I know that both of the favoured alternatives were reasonable.) Please add me to the list of admins who are sick and tired of this, and who are likely to block any editors who are responsible for this utterly pointless fight returning to WP:AN or any of its subpages. There are lots of useful things to do on Wikipedia. Pick one of them and stop bothering the rest of us with this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.

I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would have accepted a 59/41 had it gone the other way. We have a definite majority that while not quite 66% generally used for consensus, it is damn close. And it is definitely the clearest will ever expressed in the highway argument and probably the clearest there will ever be. There was nothing uncouth about the vote, it was performed fairly, there was discussion involved and a decision has been reached as arbcom demanded. This should put an end to it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I find myself asking that same question regularly. I think Wikipedia would be more credible and attract better writers if we dropped our bad habit of coddling and enabling sociopathic behavior. You can't blame SPUI - he hasn't been sent the message that disruptive behavior is actually uncacceptable. At least, that's how it looks from where I'm standing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that some admin (not already involved) needs to be bold, close the poll per Arbcom ruling that a plausible decision is better than none at all, and be prepared to back up the decision with blocks. SPUI will either accept the result or contest the page moves, in which case he should be blocked. Thatcher131 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the process currently in effect. The poll is closed and admins are weighing in. Ashibaka tock 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Benefit to the project. Disruptiveness and stubbornness aside, most of us are extremely reluctant to lose his expertise on highway topics. Powers ^T 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of us? Should we run a poll? I'm thoroughly fed up with this endless conflict over something so utterly trivial, all caused by SPUI refusing to accept that he could ever have to compromise about anything, that he has to work with others, and that he doesn't have unlimited licence to do whatever the hell he wants. I fully support Lar's block, and if SPUI persists in this sort of behaviour after the block expires, I'd support making it permanent. I see very little benefit to the project in keeping him around. --ajn (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI Blocked

I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he? We keep making it abundantly clear that he can do anyting he wants, and it will all be accepted. Would you change? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He won't. As you stated above, no one person is indispensible to this project. If that means SPUI must be blocked, even if temporairly, to gain some ground on this project and hopefully keep some editors from bailing ship, then by all means, go ahead and do it. I'm sick and tired of going on this merry-go-round of a chase to get SPUI to conform to policy, because it hasn't worked since day one. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the next block being indefinite- I've no idea what his credentials are as a highway expert but it's blatantly obvious that he's been a very disruptive editor for a very long time. Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. --Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While SPUI has contributed much to the highway article system at Wikipedia, other users can fill his shoes. The amount of people that we have lost as a result of this debate, SPUI's edit warring, and general mess should tell you there are obvious trade-offs for keeping him on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't shed any tears over SPUI's self-inflicted travails. But, you know, he does have at least a small point. That naming convention poll was vague and confusingly constructed and garnered a weak majority - it should in no way be taken as license to run rough-shod over any remaining objections. But despite my reservations about the actual poll, SPUI has proven time and again to be a real PITA. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second all of the above. I happen to largely agree with SPUI on the poll: it's confused as to its scope (started off as being on "US state routes", then wandered into Canada and US territories after the first round of voting), its process (is a non-consensus outcome on the first part binding on the options for the second part? are some states exceptions on the basis of having unique common names that contradict the part one majority, while other common names are precluded by it?), and its basic mandate (is it to determine the common name, or pick a naming convention that's able to override that principle? is there a consensus to accept a non-consensus? has arbcom mandated picking an NC, regardless of consensus? do the judging admins in fact determine if there's consensus?). But let's face it, SPUI has gotten away with murder in the past (industrial-scale incivility, rampant WP:POINT -- including nomination of deletion processes for deletion, signature-spamming campaigns against a certain Wikiproject, and doubtless much else I've blocked out of my mind), so it's hard to argue that he's being done a huge injustice if he's for the time being out of "community patience". Alai 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The poll was more than vague and confusingly constructed... it was written almost entirely by SPUI's primary adversary in all this, that user's preferred format was listed first, when SPUI objected to some of the judging admins the requirement that they be accepted by all participants mysteriously vanished, one of the people supporting SPUI's proposal was badgered into withdrawing his vote by a mob over a minor point of protocol, et cetera. The poll has been atrocious. However, a solution which is preferred by a significant majority, at least acceptable to most others, and strongly opposed by only a handful is a consensus... and that appears to be the case here. I think it could have been a much stronger decision if either side had been a bit more willing to work towards overcoming the concerns of the other, but as it stands it seems a disputed consensus is the best we are likely to get. --CBD 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you have proposed, moving Principle II to the top? Oh wait, that would seem like favouritism towards that principle and then we would all be complaining about that, right? Give me a break, I can't even believe you are complaining about the order. People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. If you had such objections to it at first, you should have voiced it then, and not now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

People were given clear instructions in a suitable format, agreed upon by admins, that stated what each principle was and what it stood for. I suppose "clear instructions" are a matter of perspective. I've been around a lot of straw polls and this ranks near the bottom in terms of clarity. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, I did not "object then" as you say because I wasn't aware of the problems. The poll specifically asked for admins who were not involved in the highway debate. I wasn't. And hence I did not know who the major players were, what positions they supported, et cetera. After having read the poll discussion, past discussions, the ArbCom case, various Wikiproject debates on the issue, past policy proposals, et cetera in order to make an informed decision I am now sadly far more familiar with the issues and participants than I would like to be. :] As to the rest of your intemperate rant... it is behaviour like that which led to this being a debacle rather than a reasoned discussion. Though one of the more minor problems here, order of options is routinely considered for possible bias in professional polling and, while something must go first, it would have been better if the one which did hadn't been the one preferred by the person who designed the poll. For instance, I doubt many people would have objected to listing 'Principle III' first... if it had been listed at all initially. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if Principle II would have been listed first, would it not be out of line to say that it was biased towards Principle II and not Principle I or III because of order? There is no easy way to go about this, but since it is clearly defined in the table of contents, all one has to do is read and find out. That's not being "intemperate", thats being reasonable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TwinsMetsFan got their first, hence he put Principle I first. Did you look at the diffs below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I constructed that poll to be as fair as possible. The reason Principle I was listed first was that they were the first ones to see the poll (check the history [1] if you doubt me.) The person who was "badgered" into changing their vote left comments next to their vote, and when a judging admin removed it, he reverted many times. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Check the discussion if you don't believe me. Judging admin problems? We were reluctant to remove any admin since we were originally short, and the objections seemed to not be well-supported. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All true, but somewhat missing the point. I wasn't saying that anyone 'set out' to bias the poll, but that there were definite problems with the way it was done. As someone heavily involved in the dispute you really shouldn't have been the one setting up the poll... and rather than stepping back you have subsequently made comments about you deciding how it should be run since you did set it up. Yes, getting enough admins is a reasonable argument... but can you really look at the fact that you were the one waiving the requirement that admins be accepted by participants after SPUI objected to some of them and say that looked 'fair'? You, of all people, getting to say that SPUI's objections "seemed not to be well-supported" and 'changing the rules' after the fact to ignore them? Then insisting 'we must follow the rules' (which you wrote) when a supporter of the other position wanted to include a one line comment with their vote? There's just an inherent conflict of interest which ought to have been avoided because no matter how fair you tried to be you're the wrong person with the wrong history on this issue. Until I read up on the background I had assumed you were an uninvolved party... because that's the only sort of person who should have had so much control over the process. But, water under the bridge. We are where we are... and I think we can construe a weak consensus from the result. Just don't say that this was 'the best that could be hoped for' or that SPUI and others who share his viewpoint (Polaron, Rory096, et cetera) have no grounds for complaint on the way it was handled. Because they do... and the 'we do not have to work towards consensus, we have a majority' attitude openly stated by some really isn't helping matters. We should all ALWAYS be trying to develop a true consensus. Of course, this is not to say that there weren't (or aren't still) problems on the other side as well. --CBD 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, we had developed a consensus against including comments when voting. You seem to be missing that point. Also, if you examine the discussion closely, I was not involved in that at all. I just logged on to Wikipedia one day and found out that all of that happened. I didn't revert any comments or anything. With the judging admins, I was not sure what to do at that point. Noone else seemed to agree with SPUI or have any objections, so I let it slide. And as to my creating the poll in the first place, noone was doing crap about the issue. We had users like User:Northenglish leaving over the indecisiveness. So I figured that we needed to do something. Noone else was. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to admit that it was better than what was going on. SPUI's alternative was mass page-move warring, using {{cleanup-title}}, etc. This way actually got something done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something being better than move-warring doesn't mean much. How about we come to a decision that everyone can actually agree on. Discussing, rather than banning comments and just voting then saying we have a consensus, would be a great alternative to this debacle. --Rory096 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing with someone who doesn't believe in compromise. Try discussing someone who doesn't believe that there are alternatives. Try discussing with someone who believes that he is right and everyone else should just shut the hell up and listen to him. I'm sorry, we tried discussion, and the result led to animosity on both sides. I'm not belittling your alternative; it's just that there is this harsh reality that cordial discussion won't work well, if it will ever exist in this debate. --physicq210 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that's not true of both sides. When SPUI refuses to give in to the non-parentheses side, they don't make counterarguments to his arguments, they just call a vote, and when SPUI complains that the vote isn't valid, they just push to have him banned. Both sides should sit down and discuss the merits of their sides, and whether their arguments do make sense and are better than the other side's. --Rory096 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We kindly asked him many times to stop so we could discuss. We started a mediation case. Then an RFC. Then ArbCom. We gave him many chances. You can read about my and others' attempts here. But he was not willing to compromise, saying "I'm right." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So now, ArbCom has succeeded in making him stop move-warring, and he agrees to discuss it. Why won't you discuss it with him? You ask him to "Please stop now"^[1] when he finally makes an attempt to understand your position, rather than explaining it to him and hopefully convincing him you're right. It just doesn't make sense to me. --Rory096 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because we discussed it ad nauseum for months upon end. Continuing to do so is beyond my sanity. And, pardon my lack of good faith (for good reason), he is most likely only trying to start another "discussion" about the decided-upon principle. --physicq210 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you just link him to where it was explained why this decision was reached, instead of just giving links to how? Of course he's trying to start a discussion; just because the designated time period for discussing the method of disambiguating is over doesn't mean discussion is banned, he still wants to know the reasoning behind the other method so he can better cope with its being used. --Rory096 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. Instead of reading it superficially, maybe try reading the linked articles I provided more thoroughly. And no, discussion is not banned, but repeating the same discussion ad infinitum is pointless. --physicq210 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same discussion. The difference is that this time SPUI is willing to listen. --Rory096 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he finally wants to discuss, the answer to his question is surely within the links I gave him. --physicq210 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious fact here is that very few Wikipedians really give a toss about parentheses or roads, we just want an end to this ridiculous edit warring and the Arbitration Committee does too and it has provided us with the means to resolve the problem. SPUI himself is under Wikipedia:probation, as are all other parties to the Highways arbitration case, and as a contribution to resolving the problem I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy . What, you say that's a bridge too far? Too bad. That is precisely what the arbitration committee said in the Highways case. The only reason these people are arguing now is that they think it's more important for their argument to continue than it is to permit Wikipedia to reach a conclusive decision on an utterly trivial issue. Let's tell them that it's time to recognise that "I am" is not the rule on Wikipedia. Let's tell them to get back to work or fuck off.. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --physicq210 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing any highway article? Or just those controversial edits? --Rschen7754

(talk - contribs) 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, just say all. This needs to end, now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not be ideal, but I'll support this and do it myself out of the community spirit. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we need to alert people somehow? How far does this extend? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That goes too far. My highway edits are constructive and do not involve mass page renames, adding unwarranted tags, or bickering endlessly on how a highway should be named. To ban any highway edits would involve a great deal of work on your part, to which is not justified nor approperiate. Let's get off the emotion bandwagon and let's talk facts:

*Only one or two users in the entire highway project are involved in the mass page renames and adding unwarranted tags. Namely SPUI.

*Only two or three users are continuously complaining about the entire system. To them, if it is not done in their way, its not to be done at all. After the mass page renames and mass tagging of articles (e.g. such as Ohio state highways), SPUI was asked to stop and discuss. After that failed, a mediation case was started. And then RFC, and now ArbCom. Per what Rschen7754 noted.

To be clear, let's keep a watch out on the articles, not ban constructive editors from doing constructive edits. I have yet to do anything wrong in this case, therefore I should not be punished for waging a vote in a legitimate process judged by several admins. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what Tony Sidaway meant were the article renamings. --physicq210 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. My profuse apologies to all involved. I overstepped the remit by saying "editing" and did not intend to limit or hamper normal editing. It was only moving, renaming that I intended to limit, and I tried rhetorically to point out that my supposed order was in fact an enforcement of the status quo. I fucked up hugely. I apologise, again, to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's not happy

[11] [12] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And this: [13]. --physicq210 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's SPUI, who made near identical comments earlier about the same topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We know that. Hence the sarcasm. --physicq210 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Add unsigned comment or delete comment until he can sign it so it doesn't appear to be "anonymous"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What comment? --physicq210 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I had too many windows open and got confused in the page histories for various pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It continues

See later post below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Rockets

Hello,

I don't know all the rules or procedures of Wikipedia, for that I apologize. However I have attempted to edit the page for "The Rockets" with some but not total satisfaction. One of the definitions you have posted reads as follows:

"Crazy Horse (band) — An American rock and roll band which was originally named "The Rockets".

In fact the Crazy Horse band was only one of at least two bands that have used the name the rockets The Detroit band mentioned was probably more well known as "The Rockets" than The crazy horse band was. While Crazy Horse is certainly notable, They used that name for a year or so, The Detroit Rockets used the name for 10+ years. and can still be heard frequently on Detroit FM stations.

The second, as one of your own admins pointed out, was a well known Band from Detroit. They put out 6 albums total, had several songs that charted and were formed by two of the former members of the "Detroit Wheels" Their singer sang for a period with Ted Nugent. They were the opening act for major bands of the period such as Kiss, ZZ Top, amungst many others. They had some but primarily local Detroit sucess with such hits as "Turn Up The Radio", "OH Well", "Takin it back" and others. They deserve more than a "See also, Detroit Wheels" I would be happy to attempt to do them better justice but I'm not sure I would be the best person to do so given my inexperience of WIKI and all the ins and outs, formatting ect. I will probably never find a reply so it may be better to send replies to crider.john@comcast.net

Thanks

See the following links:

http://www.johnny-bee.com/ http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Street/2818/ http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=3550 http://madrabbit.net/rockets/

Masssiveego has posted his RfA and I have blocked him for it

Hello. I have blocked Masssiveego for his antics on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masssiveego which seems like a clear attempt to draw fire from people bitter with his own antics on RfA, with a minimalist nomination and tongue-in-cheek answers to the questions. He seems to have induced a bite from Pschemp at least. This lasts for a week. I previously did this for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber for trolling his own RfA. Please review and feel free to protest on my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Cyde Weys 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this block. Pure WP:POINT. Can we close the RfA? (Or does it need to be a 'crat?) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of blocking him myself, so obviously I endorse the block. It's rather obvious that he's trolling for attention with all this RfA stuff... let's just not feed him and move on. --W.marsh 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA has been closed. Support block. – Chacor 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey should I close it then? It's already WP:SNOWballing with opposes and he is blocked after all. - Glen 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - shit - 4 edit conflicts later its been done :S

Sheesh, if you use the shortcut at least shorten the verb to WP:SNOWing. I want snow! :P – Chacor 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I added an extra day to the block for [14] and [15]. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Exhausting community patience?

Once again, it's time to bring this up. He's coming close to exhausting the community's patience, in my view. Thoughts? – Chacor 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. I would not have blocked him at all for starting the RfA. In fact i think SNOWing this RfA was a bad idea. Rather I would have let it run the full 7 days. Having 100+ opposes might have finally gotten through to this editor that he needs to reconsider his approach. But with the RfA snowed, he's got ammo to say we aren't treating him right, etc. ++Lar: t/c 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there just isn't a reason to let trolls stay. – Chacor 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this user a flat out troll? Sure, close the book right away... Or, is he rescuable? if rescuable is it worth the effort? that's how I evaluate the question of whether community patience is exhausted. I don't think ME is a flat out troll. His contributions are light so not a LOT of effort is justified but I'm not convinced he is not rescuable. Contrast with Tobias, next thread. CLEARLY not a troll, has a big contribution record, therefore worth a fair bit of effort, but I'm starting to think... not rescuable. Make sense? ++Lar: t/c 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we simply be gratifying him by letting the RfA run? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'm not too sussed either way but I did want to throw out that on balance, gratified or not, this is one time that SNOW isn't the right thing to do. In my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think closing it was the right thing to do to avoid disruption. Blocking him... I don't know whether he's a good faith user or not, and I suspect probably not, but I'm generally upset by the level of blocking going on in Wikipedia at the moment. The Land 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the Masssiveego's RFA voting is a problem and unhelpful, but I think imposing blocks for it is a rather drastic measure. A much better "penalty" would be for the RFA closing bureaucrats to systematically disregard his votes. Regarding the RFA, I agree with Lar that I would not have blocked him for that either, and that a hundred "oppose"s on what is in effect an editor peer review might convey the message far more clearly than a block ever will. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Lar and Sjakkalle. Haukur 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Users are allowed to use whatever criteria they like in RfAs. His are high and somewhat arbitrary, but that's his perogative. He feels that there are problems with some admins and thus that the process should be more strict/changed. He has a right to that opinion and should not be persecuted for it. Obviously his RFA self-nom wasn't meant to be a serious attempt, but I also don't see where it caused any significant disruption justifying a block. --CBD 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was obvious trolling. I think it's really not good as a community if we just let people do that. I really don't think I'd mind if someone opposed every RfA, at least I wouldn't want to block them for it, if I felt they were doing it in good faith. With his comments... it just seems like he's clammoring for attention most of the time. As a community we need to be aware of situations like that, and stop them. --W.marsh 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) He hasn't been opposing RfAs on the basis that he thinks the candiates will be bad admins, he's been opposing them to annoy people. The whole "Masssiveego is allowed to vote using his own critera" is what has allowed him to continue trolling for so long. -- Steel 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The above look like assumptions of bad faith. It seems clear to me that Massiveego votes the way he does because he legitimately believes there are problems with admins and the process for appointing them. He has repeatedly said that is the case. These claims that he is 'lying' seem wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the history IMO. --CBD 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's bad to assume bad faith, but that absolutely does not mean that I can't conclude bad faith, and this is a situation where I'll do it. This defense of an obvious troll is kind of sad. Let's go work on writing the encyclopedia. --W.marsh 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought he was acting in good faith as well until this latest RfA. CBD have you read his statement and answers? Given how many of his edits are to the RfA pages he would know that suich an RfA would merit automatic opposes no matter who it was from and he himself has opposed before per people saying the answers to the questions are too short. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. JoshuaZ 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's talk about AGF. Blnguyen blocked Massiveego, for a week, for posting that RFA. Blnguyen also told him to post that RFA. Can I really be the only person who has a problem with that? If it were such a terrible thing to do then the same people damning him here should not have been telling him to do it. --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Masssive has also shown here and here that he considers RfA a joke (I realise those RfA's are from a while ago, though). -- Steel 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I find this recent thing of many editors who should know better interpreting "Assume good faith" to mean "turn off all of your critical facilities and never act against people who are acting in bad faith" to be a somewhat disturbing trend. Nandesuka 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the needless insult. Personally, I find the inability of many admins to behave in a remotely civil fashion a "somewhat disturbing trend". --CBD 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

Okay, I reblocked him. If you look at his RfA (where someone tells people not to encourage him, then he replies flippantly "Please vote, your opinion counts!" this is just classic "Pay attention to my trolling!" stuff. Then after his comments on his talk page after the block... I mean come on, this guy is clearly playing us for attention and shows no sign of stopping, and the block was widely endorsed. Let's not keep feeding him. --W.marsh 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an improper block and wheel warring to me. The user has been saying that he was going to run for RFA (following suggestions that he do so) and preparing the form for about a week. Nothing surprising here. Nobody told him 'no do not do that'... nor should they have. Someone should not be banned from submitting an RfA just because they often vote against other users. --CBD 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but if the RfA is obvious trolling... it's not good that we sit around and give him so much attention, it's exactly what he wants. --W.marsh 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good block. He's not being banned for "submitting an RFA." He's being blocked for trolling. Nandesuka 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantic flim-flammery. If this was such a heinous thing then someone should have said so when he announced, repeatedly, that he was going to do it. Not waited until it happened and then blocked him for doing what others had encouraged him to do. --CBD 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the people on WT:RFA and whatnot may have assumed his RfA was going to be a serious attempt at adminship, rather than the attempt to troll which it turned out to be. -- Steel 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts, reply to CBD) Uh, I didn't know he was talking about doing it, so the accusation that I waited until it happened is just untrue. I don't see every edit on Wikipedia... I can only respond to what I do see, when I see it. If someone does something bad, the fact that they quietly talked about it somewhere a week ago and no one objected is absolutely not a "get out of jail free" card. That's just not how things operate. --W.marsh 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't 'quietly talk about it'. He said it several times and was encouraged to do it. See User:Masssiveego/votingsurvey. While you were (as you say) unaware of it note that the person who originally blocked him was not... because they told him to do it. And then blocked him for doing so. Indeed, both prior blockers, Blnguyen and CanadianCaesar, told him to put up an RFA. --CBD 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not that Masssive put up an RfA. Rather, the issue is that the RfA he did put up was a joke RfA attempting to annoy people. Nobody would have blocked him if his RfA had been a serious attempt at adminship. -- Steel 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Steel - your description is semantic flim-flammery. The relevant metaphor would be if someone asked you "Can I go to the bathroom?" and you said "Sure!" and they yanked down their pants and went on the floor. Nandesuka 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me... does anyone seriously claim that there was ever any possibility of a 'Massiveego RfA' PASSING? Anyone? No? Does anyone think that he didn't know that? I'm sorry, but the 'oh it was bad because it was not a serious attempt to get adminship' excuse doesn't wash. Everyone knew when they encouraged him to do it that it wasn't going to be a 'serious attempt to get adminship'... because that was completely impossible. Anyone who didn't know what his RfA was going to be like when they encouraged him to do it must have been completely ignoring their critical thinking faculties... because it was obvious. --CBD 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now who, exactly, isn't assuming good faith? In my time at Wikipedia, I have seen many RfA's brought by people whom, six months previously, you would have said had no chance at passing (off the very top of my head, Aaron Brenneman, who was blocked and publically castigated for vandalism but whom through hard work redeemed himself in the eyes of the community). The only person responsible for the contents of Masssiveego's RFA is masssive himself. I absolutely believe that had he brought an RfA that's wasn't an obvious troll, he would not have been blocked. Would he have passed? Well, maybe not this time. But a serious attempt might have laid the groundwork for the future. Trying to pin the blame for his trolling on other people for not psychically predicting it and then talking him out of it ahead of time is ludicrous. Nandesuka 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course everyone knew an RfA from Masssive would never pass. The fact is, if Masssive had written a serious nomination and provided serious answers to the questions, which I for one was expecting him to do, he would have received 100+ oppose votes, but no block. Comments such as AmiDaniel's on that voting survey page suggest that I wasn't the only one who was expecting a serious request. -- Steel 15:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I don't know about other users but if it had been a serious request I for one at least would have considered it. I think his behavior in regard to RfAs indicates an inability to work well with others and I might oppose or neutral for that reason. But the assumption that a serious RfA would have been 100 oppose votes and nothing else is unwarranted. JoshuaZ 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, he's blocked for a non-serious RFA? Sounds like your punishing him, unless you think he's going to disrupt Wikipedia by constantly making non-serious RFA's. I think both blocks are a little inappropriate. Rx StrangeLove 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the RfA actually caused little to no disruption. It doesn't matter that he was encouraged to file it by the very people (save W.marsh) who blocked him. It doesn't matter that it was entirely predictable that any current RfA from him would not be serious given the obvious fact that it would not pass. He's unpopular and there is a pretext... so hey, block for a week. Which sadly does more to make the case he has been saying about the actions of some admins than anything else he might have ever accomplished. Oh well. 'The admin community has spoken'. --CBD 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, he does very little but troll for attention, the RfA was an obvious example of that. That's disruptive, in my opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't exist to ammuse trolls. --W.marsh 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By blocking Massiveego you gave him that attention he actually may have wanted ;-). I don't see how an RfA should warrant a block. Blocking won't help here. A bit oppose piling and then everything would have been done. Now you guys and girls are blowing up the whole thing here. Not very intelligent. --Ligulem 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree at least in so far as Strangelove is right that he isn't going to repeat this presumably. However, given his past behavior we may have a serious worry that he will find some other way of trolling. As of now however the block does seem more punitive than preventative. JoshuaZ 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The trolls have figured out that they can always count on some admin to be a dissenter and argue in favor of even the worst trolls, thus creating the disruption they wanted in the first place. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The block is preventative because he showed no signs of slowing his trolling efforts. Ideally the community could just ignore them, but this thread is a sad testament that we're ignorant of trolling 101 here. Well said Cyde. --W.marsh 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who needs to 'argue in defense of trolls'. Some of us just argue against admins engaging in incivility (e.g. calling anyone a troll), excessive blocks (e.g. one week with no warning and no preventative basis), bias (e.g. this user is unpopular so it is ok), et cetera. Doesn't matter who the target of the abuse is... just that this isn't the way admins are supposed to act. --CBD 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, CBD: When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife? Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's meant as sarcasm, but it's late and I can't sense it, but I think that's going a bit too far. – Chacor 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a basic debate trap and logical fallacy... trying to change the argument so there's no answer that's "correct". --W.marsh 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on that a bit, while I agree that calling a good-faith editor a troll is incivil, there are people whom it is OK to call trolls: to wit, trolls. I do it, Jimbo does it, everyone does it. The idea that we're supposed to wear white gloves and pretend they don't exist is poor. My rule of thumb is that what is incivil is to call someone a troll to their face, since if true it accomplishes nothing and if false it's just insulting. However, using the term descriptively while talking with other admins is fine, so that we can measure appropriate response (and you may have noticed that most admins are not shy about disagreeing with the evaluation that someone is a troll, if they disagree). I think your characterizing what has gone on in this case as "abuse" is somewhat over-the-top, as my lampooning of your argument shows. Nandesuka 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are sadly correct that admin incivility and personal attacks are widespread... no they are not something that "everyone" does. This idea that 'if admins decide that someone is a troll then they can call the person a troll' directly contradicts Wikipedia policy. The same page even lists repeatedly calling someone a troll (even to third parties) as an example of personal attacks. I completely reject the principle that we are allowed to be incivil... 'because they deserve it'. No way. We should be held to higher standards. Not lower ones. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really am bothered that an admin would apparently support an obvious troll over someone like me, who has clearly never editted in bad faith or even been accused of it. We really need to stop feeding the trolls, I'll say it again. --W.marsh 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "supporting" anybody in anything. But actually, you can feed trolls by blocking them. The intention of trolls is to test the system. As long as they don't vandalise or mess up anything they should be simply ignored. I fail to see how a single RfA falls into this category. Please at least shorten the block to 48 hours or so if you really feel urged to block in this case. A week is way over the top. --Ligulem 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are bothered by this, but this idea that one user is 'supported over' another is completely wrong. There should be no hierarchy where 'recognized as better' users get to do things that others cannot. Calling people trolls is prohibitted by policy... doesn't matter who does it. Yes, even Jimbo has done that... and people called him out over it. Personal attacks are always a bad idea, no matter what the 'difference in status' between the two users. The entire mindset of 'who do you support' is a blight on Wikipedia IMO. I look at your actions and I look at his actions and I criticize each on their merits regardless of who they were directed at. He made a mildly silly RfA... following encouragement. Ummm... sorry, but that just doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. At most I might have said, 'ok, hah hah... knock it off, I am closing this down', and don't do it again. You placed a lengthy block for non-existant disruption (the RfA was already closed), called the guy a troll repeatedly, et cetera. Are you generally a nicer guy / better contributor / higher 'access level' than him? Maybe so... but entirely irrelevant to me. I don't judge situations on the 'hierarchical status' of the participants. We aren't supposed to and it's not good for Wikipedia when we do. --CBD 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the massive admin support for allowing trolling and attacking good faith editors, I have decided to unblock him. --W.marsh 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, W.Marsh. It seems likely to me that one of the folks above will re-re-block him, but I appreciate that you were willing to look at others' point of view. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate your efforts to discuss this and apologize for what you took as "attacking good faith editors". It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'. I disagree with your action here, but there can be no question that it is a common view which you would have every reason to think 'right'. I strongly disagree with that view, but do not mean to 'attack' you. I don't know you (or Massive either, beyond being familiar with contention around his RfA participation). You may well be the nicest and most productive user on Wikipedia... and I didn't mean to say anything to imply that was not the case. We disagree, but that's it. --CBD 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you and others have accused me of abuse. That is an attack. And it's in defense of a troll. I see where people's priorities are now... defend the trolls and talk about how abusive the good faith editors are. This is horrible. --W.marsh 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel it necessary to respond to the points above, in case people are under the impression that I may have been trying to "trap" Masssiveego to block him. Firstly, I said that if he wanted to run in an RfA, then he would be free to do so [16]. If anybody looks at the ten RfA nominations that I have prepared at User:Blnguyen/RfA as well as my answers to questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blnguyen it is easy to see that I take things seriously and have a high standard of what a "proper" RfA is - with a proper nomination and answers to questions - indeed I have received some good-natured jibes about my statements being excessive. I honestly felt that his RfA was not serious, as in some RfAs he had complained about others' lack of attention to detail himself. I was not intending to punish him, I felt that there was a possibility he would try and respond to the opposes in similar ways as in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber. In no way was I goading him to trap and punish him - I have never indulged in retaliatory voting at RfA as can be seen by my record. As to whether the block actually made things worse and garnered attention - that may be the case and at no stage do I rule out the possiblity that a block may be a strategic mistake. I am not hurt/bothered that other admins may disagree with me and reverse my block, my decisions are not above scrutiny, nor should they be. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you didn't anticipate the sort of RfA he would file, but perhaps I am benefitting from 20/20 hindsight. I apologize for having thought that oversight implausible. To the rest I would only say, "felt there was a possibility he would..." sounds like a reason to warn him not to do that. Neh? --CBD 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider extending to your fellow admins just a fraction of the sort of good faith you expect them to extend to trolls, vandals, and disruptors, and then they wouldn't think you were being abusive. Nandesuka 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I wouldn't have blocked over this, but I can see why it was done. I'm concerned that every time there's a block imposed these days people want to argue about the reasons why they wouldn't have done it, rather than appreciating that there's an element of discretion and judgment with these things. Two reasonable admins may take different approaches, and I think we should be fairly deferential to each other's judgment. Given that there was a block, it was rather long IMHO, but that could have been discussed with the blocking admins in a courteous way, i.e.: "Um, a week is rather long for a first block without a warning. Would you consider reducing it to 24 hours?" That's all that has to be said if we assume our colleagues who have undergone the ordeal of fire and water to become admins are reasonable people. (We should all be open to suggestions when they are put like that.) And yes, I do think we need to be as supportive of each other as possible unless someone does something obviously abusive or bizarre. Metamagician3000 00:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did here, Metamagician. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw that, and also that it got a bad reaction. I'm not being critical of you. FWIW, I think that the response you received was over-sensitive. Yes, if someone asked me as nicely as that to shorten a block I'd almost certainly comply. It's definitely not your fault that W.marsh was not receptive to your approach. Hey, I'm not laying blame with just one person here, but I'm trying to express a view about how we should try to work together and be supportive of each other while also being willing to offer and receive courteous, respectful advice. Jeeze, I'm starting to make myself feel sick here. "Kumbaya ... kumbaya ..." Metamagician3000 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Come-on Nandesuka. If W.marsh wants to leave, this is up to him (although it is ridiculous. See also [17] ;-). Again, a block of a week for a single boring soon-to-be-failing snow-ball oppose RfA is way over the top. You are making an elephant out of a mouse here. Blocking is not intended for such a behaviour. As such, criticism is well appropriate. If you can't stand that, then don't issue such inflammatory blocks. --Ligulem 01:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I'm sorry that W.marsh continues to see this in terms of 'only I or Massiveego can be right and these people support him over me'. I don't 'value Massiveego more than W.marsh' as he says, but there is nothing I can do about it if he continues to be fixed in that mindset after I have repeatedly said otherwise. I hope W.marsh will reconsider and/or realize that his stated reasons for being mad aren't true to begin with. Nobody here 'prefers trolls to valued contributors'. If you think it is "abusive" to disagree with personal attacks maybe you should try to get WP:NPA rewritten to say that admins can abuse users they don't like. --CBD 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The thought occurred to me that Massiveego may not have all his eggs in one basket, and I don't mean that as an insult, but as a defense of his actions. If this isn't the case, then my guess is he is trolling. CBD, you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption.--MONGO 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, Mongo, let's not turn this into a "I've got more experience than you"-type debate, which is what your "you need to get out, fight the vandals on RC patrol, and become more adept at identifying those that are here primarily for disruption" comment looks like to me. CBD is free to disagree with this block, and I, frankly, agree with him. Let's also not turn this into a "Is Masssiveego insane?" debate, which is entirely out of our purview. The question is about the block. The user was not warned before the block, received a week-long block for a first offence when WP:BLOCK states blocks for disruption should start at 24 hours, the user has had his block extended several times since then, and the user has been called a troll repeatedly by several users (even administrators!), against WP:NPA policy. I don't believe administrators are "above the law"; we're here to enforce the rules, not ignore them. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, facts are facts. Whether Masssiveego is a troll or not is not for me to say, but he was definitely trolling, and that is an accurate description of his actions. His talk page is littered with comments by myself and a few others in regards to what his purposes on Wikipedia are about. When you have experience dealing with these types of situations, you are less likely to assume bad faith on the part of admins, who, by the way, are following policies, if you bothered to get familiar with them. Don't try and wikilawyer about this block...if he returns to his trolling (action description), then the block should be for a month, or indefinitely.--MONGO 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you know enough of my background to make assertions that I haven't had experience in dealing with "these types of situations". I am not assuming the bad faith of any admin, and I have bothered to get familiar with Wikipedia policies, and calling someone a troll repeatedly, which is what some admins have been doing, is listed as a personal attack on the WP:NPA page. Being an admin doesn't make calling someone a troll repeatedly somehow OK. I have not accused you of anything, and I expect the same treatment from you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the editing history, examine the facts about this editors patterns and then make a well educated guess at what his intentions are. I see almost nothing but trolling editing patterns and not any loss to the community if he were to be blocked indefinitely. If the week block allows him to reform, then great, it served its purpose. If he returns to the same patterns, then why waste our time with him? Arguing about silly little words like troll is ridiculous considering the borderline harassment he has imposed a few RFA nominees to with his WP:POINT voting record.--MONGO 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I have agreed with you in the past. I agree with your above statement on several points: that this RFA was a disturbance, that blocks can make users reform, and that there are hopeless cases that cannot be reformed. I don't agree that violating an official policy about calling someone a troll repeatedly is OK if the person doing it is an administrator, or if the user somehow "deserves it": WP:NPA makes this clear. I don't agree that an over-1-week-long block for a first offence without even a warning message was appropriate: that's why we have rules on blocking. I don't agree that Masssiveego's voting on RFAs is harassment, even "borderline harassment". RFA has a long history of users !voting in ususual ways: my personal "favorite" was the "7/24ths edits must be in talk space" requirement someone was using for a while. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a sorry mess this has turned out to be

I have agreed with CBD throughout most of this discussion although I think he probably got a little too sharp in his defense of User:Masssiveego. I'm sorry that User:W.marsh has been so offended as to want to leave. I agree with Ligulem that such petulance is a bit ridiculous, even to the point of being... uh, well, I guess I better not say that as it would be considered uncivil.

I think User:Masssiveego has a problem although I can't quite figure out what it is. I first became aware of his RFA voting via a query that he made asking if he could be blocked for voting Oppose on RFAs. The answer was "No although it would help to provide reasons". Someone asked him what his criteria were and he gave a defensible answer although the standard was very high. I actually was starting to develop some respect for him. I am very disappointed and disillusioned by this joke RfA.

That said, I think blocking was an over-reaction. Either a massive oppose vote or SNOWballing the RFA would have been sufficient. It's not as if User:Masssiveego was vandalizing or engaging in serial incivility.

I admire CBD for his principled opposition to the block although I think it was a bit too spirited. I can understand why he went "over the top" in the face of opposition from just about everybody else.

I hope we can close ranks and get back to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Best regards to all.

--Richard 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the RFA and did not intend to block Masssiveego. That the block has generated this much argument, however, surprises me; he was clearly trolling, to which the Wikipedia community is disappointingly susceptible. Ignore him and he'll go away. — Dan | talk 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, and I can see where my opposition might seem stronger than warranted... though that's likely more due to this sort of thing being a personal hot button of mine. I strongly believe that any sort of 'double standard' for admins is horribly bad for Wikipedia. I compare Massiveego putting up a 'silly' RfA and getting a week long block with no warning to Cyde [to pick on one of the complainants] 'vandalizing' user pages in 'funny' ways, unprotecting the Main page, et cetera to be 'silly' despite numerous warnings... and getting little blocks of 15 minutes or a few hours. That's not equitable. Massiveego was encouraged to post an RfA (by people who apparently didn't guess that it wouldn't be a serious attempt)... Cyde was strongly warned to stop. Which was more willfully disrupting the encyclopedia? The admin community looked at Cyde's much more disruptive and deliberate actions and placed minor blocks (about nine hours in total) which were entirely preventative in nature. They looked at Massiveego's action and placed an entirely punitive week long block and collectively went on a 'personal attack fest'. Before anyone freaks out... I'm not saying that Cyde should have been blocked longer. He shouldn't have - until he stopped being disruptive was all that was needed. I'm saying that there is an obvious disparity in treatment which does more damage to Wikipedia than all the trolls and vandals combined ever will... in large part because it serves to create trolls and vandals. --CBD 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD for Wiki President! --Pussy Galore 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

...and suddenly, I find myself thinking, 'ok, maybe they had a point'. :] <j/k> <sarcasm> <do not take seriously> --CBD 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point, which needs to be taken seriously, if users are to have the confidence that a just system prevails. Tyrenius 00:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi redux

Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) persists in assuming bad faith, accusing other editors of lying, disregarding warnings and in general unacceptably incollegiate behaviour, despite multiple warnings, and multiple blocks. Here is just one example [18] I ( Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have blocked him for one week because I am thinking he still, despite much warning, counsel, outreach, discussion, and general expenditure of time and effort, does not get it. Please do not unblock or shorten without seeking consensus here first. My next block of this editor is likely to be indefinite as I think he's getting close to exhausting the communities patience. As always I welcome review or feedback on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, to me this looks more and more like harassment of the user. Yes, Tobias Conradi reacts very badly when he is treated in an unfair and/or abusive manner. Perhaps various admins ought to stop doing that? Maybe Chairboy and Pschemp could not improperly delete perfectly valid stubs ([19] [20] right after he creates them? Maybe Pschemp could not place an unwarranted block on him for trying to move a discussion about the 'Kayah Li' article to the Talk:Kayah Li page? Where exactly is that proscribed by policy? Or a block for it remotely proper? Maybe you, Lar, could stop warning him on civility every few days while saying nothing about your fellow admins making incivil comments and personal attacks ([21] [22]), to him? You badger this user constantly with threats of blocks, telling him that he has to keep your warnings displayed on his talk page or you will block him for removing them, and insisting that he should not complain about admin actions... even though many of those admin actions were in fact improper or mistakes. Then you act surprised when the user accuses admins of stalking and abusing him. I can't imagine that it would look like anything else from his perspective. It looks rather alot like that from mine. This user has been blocked for 3RR by the admin who was edit warring with him, mistakenly blocked for user page vandalism that turned out not to be, blocked for complaining about that mistaken block, blocked longer for complaining about that block, et cetera. He has reason to feel abused by admins. It is absolutely true that Tobias Conradi should do a much better job of responding to such things politely and moving on... but I for one get tired of watching a pack of admins harass and abuse a user and then point and say, 'look how angry and incivil he is being'. Stop harassing him and the problem would end. You say that you want to help him be a positive contributor, but it seems obvious that he is only not such when he is fighting with admins whom he thinks (often correctly) have mistreated him. Stop mistreating and/or fighting with him and the problem goes away. --CBD 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, would it be accurate to sum up your above as "if you stopped enforcing policy, Tobias would stop breaking it"? That sounds like a circular argument. I deleted a sub-stub (Kayah Li) that all the other admins I consulted agreed met CSD-A1 because it lacked sufficient context. That's the extent of my action, but then Tobias instantly jumped to calling the deletion admin-abuse. In fact, the first thing he did was add me to his admin abuse page, THEN he left me a message telling me to undelete it. The fact that I ended up on his 'abusive admins' list before he even talked to me is significant. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him before this, but he jumped straight to abuse. For your argument to work, he would have needed to have been 'persecuted' by me previously. Instead, we've got an editor that jumps straight to assuming bad faith. I immediately copied the content of the deleted article to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand and repost it. Instead, he planted his heels in the ground and just kept calling me an abusive admin. I've been polite, civil, and encouraging to him the entire time, but he has not returned the favor. He has alternately called me a liar, stupid, and malicious. He has accused me of vandalism and deleted my responses on his talk page. Finally, he has a page with a list of abusive admins that have attacked him. CBD, ask yourself if it seems at all unusual that he's had soooo many run-ins with evil administrators. At what point do you start to examine the claims critically? I've offered to help Tobias with setting up an RfC against me (in light of his continuing claims that I've maliciously abused my "powers") but every time he backs off. His persecution complex does not, it appears, seem to extend a formal airing of issues. I am beginning to have a difficult time assuming good faith on his behalf based on what appears to be an almost pathological victim complex. I feel that if he were really interested in the Kayah Li article that started this whole thing, he would have spent the 30 seconds needed to add context to the userfied content I sent him and reposted it. Instead, he has attempted to turn this into some sort of circus. He has created a page called the 2006 Kayah Li incident, a grand name for a sub-stub that was appropriately deleted under WP:CSD. He is a prolific editor that has amassed a tremendous number of edits, but that edit history does not appear to have come with a commensurate maturity, understanding of WP policy, and civility to other users. I endorse Lar's block and hope he will come back a productive user who does not choose picking fights over contributing to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, no, obviously that is not anything remotely like an accurate description of my position. Say rather, 'if admins would stop violating policy Tobias would stop responding in kind'. The fact that other admins supported your deletion of this does not change the fact that it was not a proper use of CSD A1... as many people have since affirmed. Indeed, admin support of a plainly out of process deletion rather proves his complaint. It was a valid stub which provided complete context of what the subject was. Yes, he reacted very badly to the deletion... see above where I've said this repeatedly. You call his reaction a "persecution complex" (demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him)... but generally those only come into existence following actual persecution. No, he doesn't have past history with you... but as I demonstrated he does with other admins. Consider that maybe he isn't 'acting in bad faith' as you suggest above, but legitimately feels 'persecuted'. Because he has been. --CBD 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, CBD, I think we're going to have to disagree about this. I welcome scrutiny of my actions, and if there's an RfC, I'll be there. Please find an example of incivility in my dealings with Tobias during this, you just implied that I've been rude to him and I'd like a diff please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... look up. You don't see anything 'rude' about, "almost pathological victim complex"? I don't think you've committed any heinous incivility (his has been notably worse), but no... you haven't been perfectly nice either. I'm sorry you don't agree about the nature of A1, but there really just isn't any question about it. That was not a valid A1. The context of the article was absolutely clear. --CBD 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I said that I felt he had a victim complex, and I said that above. You said "demonstrating some of that 'perfect civility' with which you have treated him" in reference to that. When I asked for an example, you pointed right back at the same text. That's self referential. You implied that I had been anything less than civil with him when talking to him, and I've asked for a diff. Please provide it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since saying he has a "persecution complex" and an "almost pathological victim complex" are somehow not incivil how 'bout the condescending, "I'll accept your apology now." Again, I'm not saying you were horrifically mean, but this tenacious 'no I was right' reaction is just the sort of thing I was talking about. You weren't right. You haven't been acting "with nothing but civilness". Congratulations, you're human. So is he. Cut the guy some slack and consider, 'hey maybe me deleting his article like that might have been annoying'. --CBD 16:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well CBD, I sometimes find you annoying but i don't respond with immediate, constant blatant incivility. Stop making excuses for Tobias's bad behaviour. Annoyance doesn't excuse his actions, especially considering chairboy never interacted with him before. pschemp | talk 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Me? Annoying? Impossible. :] No, I don't 'make excuses' for him. I have said (over and over and over again) that his reaction was wrong.... but that isn't the only problem here. The actions against him were wrong too... and until people start addressing that it seems obvious that the problems will continue. Yes, we should try to get him to be less hostile to admins. Step one - stop giving him reasons to be hostile. Seems better for everyone. Constantly harping on him... how's that working out thus far? Anyone think it's sure to work if we just keep at it? --CBD 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Chairboy was correct in his deletion, kindly put the deletion in userspace, was never hostile to Tobias and has never harped on Tobias in his life. Tobias's reaction was rude, uncivil, and unwarranted. Tobias is a victim of nothing but his own temper, and never assumes good faith in anything, and you are making excuses for him by claiming he is the victim. He brought all of this on himself by not being able to control his temper. His reactions were his choices, no one else's, and just as you said, there is no excuse for incivilty, so why are you trying to give him one? Even if Chairboy's action was a mistake, (which it wasn't) Tobias reaction is out of line. Way out of line. This is a simple matter of a man who can't control his temper, when nothing was done to deliberatley provoke him by Chairboy. That is unacceptable behaviour and actions against him resulting from this uncivilness are entirely justified. pschemp | talk 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi is either performance art or someone who doesn't get it, I agree, but let's escalate from week to months rather than indefinite, please. Geogre 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think indefinite is warranted here, as Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him. The attempt to paint him as the victim is laughable though. Tobias has been yelling admin abuse from day one, before he was ever blocked for his quite uncivil responses and rants. CBD is also ignoring Tobias's use of IP sockpuppets and meantpuppets to get around his blocks, and the fact that even the people who try to be nice to the man get lambasted by him. Aditionally, moving an irrelevant personal argument about speedy deletions to the talk page of a deleted article is not appropriate. Chairboy has acted with nothing but civilness here, has no hostory with Tobias, and yet has met with incivilty at every comment. He even userfied the deletion so Tobias could work on it. I'm sorry but Tobias has shown that he in incapable of dealing with even the smallest disagreement in a civil fashion (even before the alleged mistreatment) and as such deserves blocks until he can learn to play nice. Excusing incivilty because Tobias has an admin abuse chip on his shoulder is unfair to those editors who do remain civil in conflicts. pschemp | talk 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think indefinite is warranted this time, which is why I went with a week. And I'm not averse to trying months next time rather than indefinite. But I have to take issue with some notions mooted early on in this thread, namely that giving civility warnings (when instead, based on prior history and the knowledge that the user has been told what the problem is) instead of just handing out a block, or giving out more than one block, is somehow stalking or harassment. (and further, I think calling it that shows disrespect to admins and their judgement... CBD ought to know better) Taken to the extreme, that means that any one admin could only ever give out one warning or block to a particular misbehaving user. And that's not workable. Further, while I think that admins should be held accountable if they are incivil, I'm not seeing that there is massive incivility on the part of admins in this case (I admit bias!), and more importantly, I don't think it appropriate that a user get a "free pass" because an admin wasn't civil. That's a double standard, it says admins have to be perfect or else users can be as nasty as they like. Anyone who reviews Tobias's discussion with other users will find a pattern of repeated nastiness that there seems to be little prospect of ever changing. His interaction with Chairboy is perfect evidence of it... continued hostility and wild accusations of all sorts of things and no acknowledgement that he did anything that could stand improvement. If you want more, look at the tail end of User_talk:Tobias_Conradi#Blocked_for_one_week where a previously more or less uninvolved editor Evertype (talk · contribs) gives some good advice and Tobias rips into him for it. We need to get away from the notion that a lot of previous conttributions give you a free pass to act like a prat. I've seen it in several cases lately and it's corrosive and damaging. I agree with pschemp, above but note that "Tobias is a productive contributor as long as no one disagrees with him." == "NOT a productive contributor" because disagreements happen. They are part of how things get better. If you can't disagree civilly, your contributions, however large, can be done without. No one is indispensable to this project. So, I will continue to monitor this user's behaviour and if it doesn't get better, probably block again, or, seek another editor to apply it. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, again... the fact that Tobias responds very badly to mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions is a reason to block him. It is absolutely not a reason to continue to engage in mistaken, questionable, and/or incorrect admin actions against him. You all keep going on about how he should not "get a 'free pass'" because of 'number of contributions'... which is a complete straw man. Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok? That he should not be blocked? No. I'm saying that admins should not be deleting his articles out of process, hounding him over every civility infraction, subjecting him to incivility and personal attacks in turn, blocking him for edit wars they took part in, telling him not to complain about admin actions, forcing him to keep warnings displayed on his page, et cetera. On your intention to continue to "monitor" Tobias I refer you to Wikipedia:Harassment#Coolcat.2C_Davenbelle.2C_and_Stereotek and leave it at that. --CBD 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Have you seen me saying that what he did was ok?" I have seen you leave that implication. First, you characterise admins monitoring his behaviour as "harassement" which leaves the implication that he did nothing incorrect, at least in the way that he apparently analyses things (based on my own analysis of his statements) Also, see here: [23] See also here:[24] where you don't address that he has things he needs to do to get it lifted, just that you want it lifted. You're leaving him the impression that you think this block is not justified. Given who you are dealing with, it is my view that you need to be a lot more careful and precise in your statements. As for my monitoring Tobias, I don't see the issue you do with watching a problematic user to see if they continue to cause problems. Because this user is problematic, nothing you have said refutes that. I think you need to think harder about whether your actions, in general, are helping, or undercutting, other admins and their efforts to make this a better place. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar nails it in one. Nandesuka 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, the "implication" is in your imagination. I have stated unequivocally over and over again that Tobias's actions were unacceptable. Your citation of a few edits where I didn't say so (nor that they were acceptable) as evidence of an 'implication' in contradiction of my numerous direct statements strikes me as disingenuous at best. You say that warning against harassment "leaves the implication" that what the user did was fine... no, it really doesn't. Why would it? I refer you again to that link. Note that it covers a situation specifically where the user did do things wrong... but the ArbCom found the "monitoring" and continuous badgering on that to still be harassment. It isn't an 'either / or' situation. Both can be true. As to me stymieing 'efforts to make this a better place'. Look at the results of your efforts here. How are they working out so far? Making alot of good progress in getting Tobias to be civil are you? If not... consider that maybe there is a better way to go about this. Maybe not threaten him with blocks if he doesn't keep your warnings displayed on his talk page. Not excuse or ignore admin violations of process and policy against him. Not hound him constantly. I'm sorry, but if these are your efforts to "make this a better place"... they obviously weren't working long before I noticed the train wreck and tried to do something about it. I'm sorry, but isn't it obvious by now that the approach you have been following just keeps making matters worse? I'm not saying that's your intent... but can you honestly tell me it isn't accurate? Likewise Nandesuka... I'm not about to apologize for 'undercutting' your efforts to wheel-war, engage in personal attacks, and place punitive blocks clearly well outside the bounds of policy... because I really don't think they do a heck of a lot to "make this a better place". Rather the opposite. --CBD 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is that the block was handed out for his actions with respect to Chairboy. These have been demonstrated as being completely unacceptable. Tell you what though, next time I see something egregious I'll drop you a mail and let you warn him instead of me. You can do it in a way that satisfies your critieria of how it ought to be done... If you warn him and he responds positively, great. If he goes off (as, unfortunately, given past history, I have every reason to expect he will), YOU block him instead of me. But if you can't demonstrate satisfactorily that the infraction (whatever it is) wasn't egregious (I assume your mail is turned on?) and you don't warn, I will. And if after he's warned, if he goes off, I'll expect you to block. Again I'll use email to discuss it, but if you won't block and you can't explain why, I will. I think that if you mean what you say about not tolerating his behaviour, this will be entirely satisfactory to both of us, because you'll be handing out the warnings and blocks... But if you don't... well, consider it "put up or shut up", you don't just get to snipe at everyone else indefinitely. It's time for you to do better than me, or... admit you're wrong, that this user is incorrigible, or at least that all the admins that have tried so far are acting in good faith and not just harasssing him. Now on the other hand, if knowing it's YOU on the case instead of any of the rest of us causes him to straighten up and fly right so as not to make you look the fool, well, that's a win too. It's time this user's issues were resolved, one way or another. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable, and while blocking isn't my preferred method of 'conflict resolution' I've done it before when acting as a 'proxy' in similar circumstances. It is at least worth a try and I'd think preferrable to continuing a downward spiral with an inevitably bad conclusion. In reference to the 'outcome' you cite above... even before we undertake this effort, there is no question in my mind that you were acting entirely in good faith. I believe you were trying to help Tobias... I just think you were going about it the wrong way. --CBD 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I hope not to ever have to send you a mail about this, but if I do I look forward to working productively with you. I can't speak for other editors but maybe they would be willing to do the same in this case? ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

I just blocked Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely following this edit to his talk page, where he seems to admit being behind "Johnny the Vandal". the wub "?!" 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mike has a troubled history, but do other people see that admission as being a little vague? Geogre 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Abso-fragging-lutely. What that diff actually says is "anybody trying to create an account with email <john@freeq.com> is 'Johnny the Vandal'…". Try reading it again. HTH HAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Boswell (talk • contribs)

• • Well, if it's true, it certainly doesn't surprise me at all. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, now you mention it, it could be read another way. However I think the reference to Jimbo allowing the account back in means he is referring to his own account, since it was Jimbo's personal intervention that got User:Mike Garcia unblocked in the first place. Notice that Mike's recent edits have been almost solely tagging supposed sockpuppets of JtV. The way I see it, this admission could have something to do with the increasing appliance of WP:DENY and the recent deletion of {{Johnny the Vandal}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Johnny the Vandal. I have informed Jimbo on his talk page anyways. the wub "?!" 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I've never had any good fortune dealing with Mike, and I was trying to not refer to his distant past, but, because of the ambiguity, I'd recommend lifting the block, or at least shortening it, until this is hashed out a bit more. (Again, Mike has been a ball of frustration for me, but I don't see him quite admitting to being JtV, and it's within Mike's personality to start on something like catching JtV and then following through to the exclusion of everything else, so that's no evidence, one way or the other.) Geogre 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody told Danny about this? It was through his efforts that the unrepentant troll who is Mike Garcia was allowed back to Wikipedia. Danny probably has good rapport with him, and might be able to get some information. It does look like he's been playing us all along, though, especially referring to Jimbo as "Wales", which implies a little more ... enmity, I guess would be the word, than someone who seems to have autism, or whatever other things he has claimed to have. I've never been happy with his returning, especially his repeated nastiness to me and to Hephaestos, and I blame him for Hephaestos having left Wikipedia, and never understood the rush to bring him back. Unless and until he makes a completely understandable explanation, keep him banned. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the critical thing is that first sentence. I'll go check, but Danny is his mentor, so he should want to know. I've no words to say in Mike's defense, but he went several months with legitimate, if...socially unaware...edits. A person with autism could well choose the wrong level of familiarity, misunderstand nuance, and get obsessive about tracking a vandal, but that's neither here nor there. If there are no notes about this on Danny's page, I'll drop one. Geogre 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though Mike is (in?)famous for being an AOL user it may be worth running a checkuser - he could be one of the lucky ones to be getting an XFF header (or is that still not implemented?) Also I'm going to be away for a few days, and just want to make it clear I have no problem with anyone overturning/shortening the block if they feel it appropriate. the wub "?!" 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, at least this explains why it's been virtually impossible to use AOL over the last few weeks. And no, there still aren't any XFF headers, and there probably never will be. But if a vandal is stupiud enough to use a 172, those can be checkusered--152.163.100.65 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International article

First off, I work for Amnesty International, but I'm here in a personal capacity. However, I've been told it's a Conflict of Interest to edit the page. Fine, but someone else should look at User:Whiskey Rebellion's edits. He's been seriously pushing an anti-Arms Control position on the article, he's even admitted to writing a POV piece. Donnacha 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Donnacha, I said my first edit included a sentence that was written in a pov fashion. I was being honest and changed it completely. My edits are neutral and sourced. You object to my and other editors' edits constantly because they get in the way of your apparant Amnesty International public relations job here at Wikipedia. You work for them. You are making and reverting in a biased way. Also, you continually attack other editors rather than commenting on their edits. You made 10 reverts yesterday, too. You should simply not be editing this article. Whiskey Rebellion 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Amnesty International I don't see anything drastically point-of-view. Can you explain what in particular you are concerned about? Equally I would ask both of you to calm down and go and find something else to do than edit these articles for a few days. The Land 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look back at the history. Mr Whiskey posted a personal criticism of the Control Arms Campaign, then linked to a cite that didn't criticise AI (in fact, it quoted them in support of the author's argument) and now, having failed to find a proper cite as asked, has, instead, decided to expand the Control Arms piece of the History out of proportion with the other campaigns, despite me starting an article on the Campaign (the link to which he's removed), and removed it from the criticism section. He's consistently tried, as someone who opposes arms control, to push his point of view and now, with increasing attention on the piece, he's hiding behind factual quotes - the lack of proportionality and balance in the history section is now the POV problem. There's also a typo in it - "It's stated intent". Anyway, I'm not going to edit it anymore, so it's up to others now. Donnacha 13:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reminder, one of the users involved in this particular content dispute (which it is) has been brought up on ANI recently. To be honest, WP:3O or one of the other steps in the dispute resolution process would be a better place to go. Alternatively, if there's a problem with excessive reverts, there's the 3RR board. The best step, of course, would be to step back, smile at each other, and work out your differences calmly and keeping in mind Wikipedia policies first and foremost. It's a freaking free encyclopedia, guys. Not worth yelling at each other over. Captainktainer * Talk 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that quite a few people volunteer for AI and even more are sympathetic, so I'm not sure that working for them is anything like a bar to editing the article. AI has thousands of volunteers and contributors and members, so we have to look at what's written and not the personal life of the authors. Geogre 11:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. There is no rule that being affiliated to something stops you from editing the article, as long as policies such as NPOV are followed. In fact, it is a good thing if the editor can bring useful information to the article. Tyrenius 06:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Being paid by an organization and then editing articles about that organization is a conflict of interest. It's similar to people editing articles on themselves. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We tolerate the latter provided the edits are good and properly researched, and fixing vandalism is always permissible: what's wrong with the former under the same stringent conditions? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policy as currently written does allow that, contrary to what Woohookitty says, it only stops those who "are getting paid to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization", which I'm not. I happen to work for AI, but I'm here voluntarily as a private individual. Donnacha 10:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're also clearly biased toward the organization and spend a lot of time and energy reverting other's edits. And there is a huge difference between volunteering for an org and getting paid by them, even if you don't specifically get paid to edit the article. This is a clear case of conflict of interest Whiskey Rebellion

Marudubshinki running a bot again

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked on a number of occasions and currently has an arbitration case being considered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki for use of an unapproved bot against WP:BOT policy. He now appears to be running an unapproved python bot - [25]. As an involved party in the RFAR, I would prefer not to get any more involved at this time. Could someone deal with this please. -- I@n 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marudubshinki/Workshop#Proposed_temporary_injunctions That section is empty, perhaps a temp AC inj. needs to be seeked. – Chacor 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a thread about this on this page already, scroll up a bit. I'm not aware that you need approval to run a script that requires human approval to make each edit, which seems to be what he was doing this time (see the other thread for my explanation of why this almost certainly wasn't an unattended bot). (after edit conflict) As Chacor mentions, seek an injunction if you want him to be stopped from using any kind of special assistance to edit. --W.marsh 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see that thread above, and your response there makes sense to me, although I would have thought that running the bot (human-assisted or not) has a sniff of arrogance given the RFAR. I withdraw this request. -- I@n 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him again. I wouldn't recommend unblocking at this point until his arbitration is over because it's becoming quite clear that we cannot trust him not to run unauthorized bots no matter how many times we ask him to. If he wants to make a statement, let him do so to his user talk page and have someone copy it over to the arbitration page. --Cyde Weys 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also quite clear we can't trust you not to run unauthorized bots, but you aren't blocked. If his edits aren't a problem why should he be blocked? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cydebot is authorized. It even has a bot flag. What are you on about? --Cyde Weys 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that when you were questioned about your bot doing things it hadn't been authorized to do, your response was "whatever," but now you seem to think running unauthorized bots calls for immediate blocking. Even stranger, your bot's unauthorized activity was substing a template that shouldn't have been substed, requiring a non-admin to manually revert all its edits, whereas all of Maru's robot assisted edits appear to be good faith and constructive. Just wondering how your philosophy on unauthorized bots has evolved over time. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing an entirely different issue, that bots should be approved for each separate task (which is arguable). What I'm arguing is that bots need to be approved, period. That's not arguable and that is a basic part of the bot policy. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:BOT: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do." So, the idea that "bots should be approved for each separate task" is "arguable" in the sense that "The Earth is round." is arguable. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do a poll then. See how many people actually think that a bot must be granted separate permissions to run each different functionality available in pyWikipediaBot. --Cyde Weys 01:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but let's phrase the poll like this: "Once a bot has been approved for one purpose, it should then be allowed to do whatever the operator feels like." --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop turning a legitimate policy question into a personal atack on Cyde. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved third party, in my judgement, the phrasing of your comment was a snide attack, not a legitimate policy question. There is a legitimate policy question here, yes. That was an inappropriate and unnecessary way to describe the point.

NPA and WP:CIVIL doesn't mean "don't make these points", it means "make them in a polite manner". Cyde was not baiting you or attacking you; there was no reason to respond in that unpolite a manner.

As I am not an administrator, all I can do is say "Shame on you" here, but please. It was uncalled for. Not only does rude discourse make discussions less pleasant, it obscures legitimate policy issues which may underly the discussion. Your question about interpretations of the bot policy is interesting and a valid question. Instead of debating that, you've taken us off sideways onto an unrelated point. Why did you do this? Georgewilliamherbert 03:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found some of my rhetorical devices snide or rude. But I maintain that I never attacked Cyde as a person, only his actions and arguments. And since I still haven't recieved a satisfactory answer to what you describe as a "legitimate policy question" it's hard to feel remorseful. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's steer the issue away from Cydebot and Cyde. We've both stated our positions in regard to Cydebot's approval status. Belaboring the point in this topic really doesn't seem to do the issue proper justice and will likely rapidly descend into personal attacks. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Stingray

A user requested Stingray to be fully protected here.

Apparently, the request was denied by Admin YankSox, but they have failed to take in consideration the constant vandalism that the article has been hit with. In the last hour alone, it has been edited over 100 times, most of the edits coming from vandalism and vandalism revertions.

I would like for an admin(s) to re-consider protecting this page. (I already made a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I don't think my request will be heard.

--Nishkid64 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, protection policy means that it shouldn't be protected due to it being on the main page. – Chacor 16:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I was still hoping it would be re-considered. The vandalism to this page is pretty serious. --Nishkid64 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• An S-protect wouldn't be out of line, given the Steve Irwin stuff. Geogre 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've Sprotected it. Heavy vandalism which people aren't always catching. I can see no reason in the policy not to since it's not a featured article - am I being thick? The Land 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. It isn't a featured article, just In-the-News, and the general idea is that we don't protect our FA's, but, even then, we've done it before. This is one of those situations like Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince where the more juvenile are just going to be itching to scribble. It's one step from being slashdotted. An S-protect is the very thing, IMO. Geogre 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is OK and seems a good thing to do. Tyrenius 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism -

Dear sirs - The following page has been vandalized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joto_%28comics%29 with a block of illiterate, filthy racist commentary. am not a Wikipedian, or I would have taken action myself. Yours, James W. Reynolds —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.158.215 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. Thanks for letting us know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still more than welcome to remove it. :) – Chacor 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Matthew Bates

I wasn't sure where to report this but this page is being vandalised with the same website link over and over again. I've been reverting it back every time. The person (or people) doing it are changing one or more of the references to a link that redirects to a site that has nothing to do with the person in question (although his pictures may be hosted somewhere on the site). I warned the first two users about 3RR and each time I did, a different user came along and chaged the links. So I suspect they are sockpuppets as well. Didn't know what to do next so thought I'd mention it here. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Several vandal accounts blocked. Will protect if vandalism reoccurs. --FloNight 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. One of the accounts isn't new and has just reverted the page again. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic pictures (full male penis') in watermelon search

Please note I am not sure how this all works, but when daughter was searching for info. on growing seedless watermelons in florida via google, the following link was unacceptable, especially when think have the right protocols in place to protect children - apparently need to ban wikipedia due to risks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon

link via search words in google "growing seedless watermelons outside Florida"

Please accept full apologies for the inadvertent appearance of an inappropriate image in this article. It was due to an act of vandalism, which was reverted as soon as it was discovered. Because of wikipedia's open access policy such things do occur occasionally, but are generally corrected within a few minutes. As a user, you are welcome to do that correction yourself if you spot it, and to warn the user or post here to draw an admin's attention. Tyrenius 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture of a penis in that article, and if there was it probably would have been removed ASAP for vandalism. There would be a picture of a penis in Penis and pictures of breasts in Breast, as Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do your homework before telling someone something didn't happen and trotting out the wikipedia isn't censored thing.pschemp | talk 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you can try reading my post. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did. It implies that the picture might not have been there, which is rude to the newbies (whether you meant it that way or not). If you didn't sorry. A much more polite explanation is the one by LinaMishima below, which leves no doubt as to its intentions to help. pschemp | talk 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The taxobox template was vandalised with that oh-so-popular penis image; it was caught in a couple of minutes. Template is now locked. Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes no assertions of the safety or suitability of any of it's content. Please see the General disclaimer linked to at the bottom of every single page. It is the parents' responsibility to check websites for suitability, and all related software does not excuse them from this duty. Debates are ongoing as to what procedures can be used to mitigate such problems without causing a radical shift in openness, and you are welcome to join in with them. LinaMishima 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yea I mangaged to get an penis image with an article that had the template in random earlier today. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone added a penis to the taxobox. I've long been wondering why vandals hit individual articles rather than widely-used templates ... maybe they are "learning". Anyway, it might be a good idea to protect every template that is used on more than X pages, where X is open for debate. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing templates that are used on alot of articles is certainly nothing new. I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a template should be (semi)-protected, tho. Template:Taxobox has just been semi-protected, anyways. --Conti|✉ 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is exactly what Conti meant, but in a similar vein I suggest that we first try semi-protecting these widely-used templates, see if that solves the problem, before moving to full-protection of these templates. Not only does it adhere to the principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia, but (more importantly, IMHO) it slows the escalation of vandalism/reaction & gives us more time to consider if there is a better solution to this problem. -- llywrch 19:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Celebrity got hit by the same vandal a fews days ago too. I've semi-protected it for now. And for good measure, I've also full-protected Template:administrator because it's too tempting a target. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

stingray article has recent vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-tail_stingray

has a unfortunate joke recently included

Now semi-protected. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a high profile target now due to the death of Steve Irwin -- Drini 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray still has vandalism from registered users at time of writing. -- Tyagi 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing copyright by taking screenshot of webpage?

The uploader Cardreader (talk · contribs) claims {{Web-software-screenshot}} and has added it to the article Federation_of_Tamil_Sangams_of_North_America. It looks like a clever attempt to bypass copyright, and the tag of screenshot doesn't seem to apply here at all.

Thanks. --Ragib 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A photo of copyrighted material is a violation of the copyright; at its most basic form, the photograph is a COPY and he did not have a RIGHT to make it. --Golbez 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a screenshot taken at 1:1 proportions with the original image (as is the case with anything on the web) effectively includes an exact copy of the original image in the screenshot. It can't be used to get around anything. --Cyde Weys 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you list the images in question? Such template specifically states

• for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Therefore, it cannot be used for circumventing copyright laws and display content . After all, he's not commenting on the browser (the software) -- Drini 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving an article marked for deletion

Hi. Question here.

Five days ago, I marked The Cheetah Girls (TV Series) for deletion (the AfD discussion can be found here). Since the discussion has began, the article has been moved twice - first to The Cheetah Girls Sitcom, then to The Cheetah Girls: The Series. I'm going to ask; is moving an article that's marked for deletion allowed? –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. It can be seen as vandalism, in fact, if it's done as an attempt to evade the deletion. If the consensus of the AfD was "change to [new name]," then that should be performed at the end of the AfD, by the closer. Anyone doing anything prior to that should indicate on the AfD that it's being contemplated, then that it's done. Geogre 01:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as the deletion discussion is moved too, I don't see what the problem is. Unless, of course, none of the participants are aware of the move and get confused trying to find the discussion.--KojiDude 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If it wasn't wrong, I have moved the article back to the original name. Ryūlóng 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• The problem with moves during AfD is that it evades the closing decision, and this is particularly true if there is a double move, as the closer finds a redirect to a redirect, and it's even possible that the first redirect will have been deleted as a double redirect. My point is that AfD is a sort of freeze frame, unless we know in advance. Trust me: it can be very bad mojo. Geogre 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, now that the article's been moved back (thanks Ryulong), can an admin come in and close this AfD? Think it's been oer 5 days now. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problems with moving an article marked for AfD. A redirect will remain there, so it's not evading the decision at all, and if it's moved twice, double redirects are bypassed to make them single redirects, not deleted. Even if they were deleted, the deletion log would show that it was just a redirect and where it pointed to, so the closer could always find the article. --Rory096 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no intention of violating WP:BEANS by explaining more, but there are very good reasons to disallow page moves that are not discussed on the AfD. Telling folks on the AfD that you're doing the redirect (if it's suggested) and inviting review is one thing. Doing the move to effectively hide in the clover is quite another. Further, we have had people brought to ArbCom for, among other things, deciding that redirects were the universal solution to the "deletion problem." Again: it's a general no-no, and people moving articles, especially those moving them twice, probably violate the premise of AGF and should be presumptively treated as vandals. Geogre 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox and Hagiographer (again), review please

I need some help with a situation at Arb enforcement and beyond. Hagiographer (talk · contribs) posted a complaint about Squeakbox evading a one-month block. However this "block evasion" was editing his own talk page, which is permitted. I find in reviewing the case that on August 18, Hagiographer altered Squeakbox's signature to that of a user he suspected of being Squeakbox's sock puppet.

There is also a complaint that Hagiographer included a personal attack in this prod notice filed on an article about Squeakbox's grandfather, which I agree is a significantly abusive attempt to troll against a blocked user. However, the prod was removed and the complaint filed by two new users, Relator (talk · contribs) and Mister Shower (talk · contribs), who I suspect are Squeakbox sock puppets. Since the socks have not edited articles other than to respond to Hagiographer's trolling, I recommend blocking them but not extending Squeakbox's ban, currently set to end Sept 22. I also recommend a significant block for Hagiographer for trolling, at least a week and possibly as long as 18 days, to end when Squeakbox's block ends. Hagiographer should not be allowed to take advantage of Squeakbox's block by trolling him in this way. Comments please. (Also I can't throw the blocks myself). Thatcher131 (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the summary & actions. Hagiographer's recent seem to focus of taunting SB and "admin-shopping" - spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving his desired outcome. Guettarda 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy that my User name starts with a "Z" :) User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer's defense

• You claim I've changed SqueakBox's signature. Well, he changed a post of mine here in the arbitration enforcement page. The rules in the top of that page state clearly that the header of any complaint must be the name of the user you're complaining about. If I was complaining about SqueakBox, what was the meaning of changing the header to "SqueakBox and Zapatancas"? Nobody did anything at the time. Here he redirected to his user page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox and removed any evidence that a sock puppetry accusation (started by me) had been posted. Nobody took any action. Did anybody warn SqueakBox at the time? SqueakBox was blocked on August 24 because he had accessed the Wikipedia during his first month ban as User:Skanking. Skanking was blocked on July 26. That is, it took a month to enforce a simple ban! Well, I changed the signature of SqueakBox to other signature of him (because Pura Paja is SqueakBox). Did you really want me to believe in those circunstances that changing SqueakBox's signature to that of his sock puppet when he was trying to deceive honest, neutral users making them believe Pura Paja was simply another Wikipedian and not a sock puppet of him repeating his typical vandalism was so serious? Nobody was enforcing the simplest decisions although I was getting tired of asking them to be enforced (example) and nobody was answering me! SqueakBox had changed my edits blatantly and nobody had done anything!!! And you want to punish me for that now, when I had already been punished by being placed under POV parole and being banned from editing Zapatero's articles although I've simply removed vandalism from them? I believe that in the American Constitution can be read that the same person cannot be put in risk of limb twice for the same offense (or something like that). Does that not apply in the Wikipedia?
• User:Guettarda has exposed here "his opinion" without recognizing that he has had some clashes with me. Is that the behavior recommended for administrators? This administrator has been harassing me of late. Here he posted in my talk page that I'm obssesed with other editor (SqueakBox), that I like picking fights with other people. If those aren't personal attacks tell me what they are. I tell him here that SqueakBox was accessing the Wikipedia from an IP although he is blocked (that IP has already been blocked fortunately [26]) and he showed no interest at all. In SqueakBox's user page there is an insult against me: "My [SqueakBox's] greatest achievements here [...] have been [...] and restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints." Hagiographer means writing about saints. It's clear that's a personal attack. SqueakBox has been blocked for that!, see his block log. Guettarda protected that page so that insult that I don't know what it has to be tolerated couldn't be marked as what it is. I marked it as a personal attack here, as I didn't feel I had a right to remove something to which I was directly involved, and that even though WP:NPA states that, although isn't considered an official policy, removing personal attacks is common and even welcome.
• Guettarda and SqueakBox have been involved in the past in harassment campaigns against other users. In User:SqueakBox can be found a barnstar given by Guettarda when he congratulates SqueakBox for expelling other users (whom he insults calling them strange) from Javier Solana. Although he cannot be neutral as a consquence he has had no qualms in persecuting me, a honest wikipedian who only asked not to be insulted.
• Guettarda is accusing me unfairly of "admin-shopping" "spamming admins in alphabetical order with the hope of achieving [my] desired outcome". I simply want that insult to be removed. I've tried to unprotect the page. That request was denied. I understood that the reason was: "Only you know you're being insulted so no need to take any action". That was what I understood at least. So I tried to look for a second opinion, as the first didn't convince me. I've not written WP:NPA. It's there where personal attacks are banned. SqueakBox has been banned for that insult. What's the use of banning the person and keeping the insult? I'd rather prefer it the other way around. Is that such a crime? I'm from Spain so, it seems most administrators are sleeping when I access the Wikipedia, if I ask several of them the answer is expected to be faster and the problem can be solved sooner. And well, when SqueakBox created Skanking it was pretty clear he had to be blocked. It took a month! If believing that finding an administrator with time enough to analyze a situation in depth with that precedent is a crime, ok, I'm a criminal. I've posted tons of messages complaining for SqueakBox's insults and breaches of his ban and most of them have simply been ignored. This time, I've simply asked the administrator community for help. Is that an attack so terribly against the Wikipedia? That is, SqueakBox insults me. Guettarda enforces that insult and start harassing and insulting me. I post a message to ten administrators of whom, probably, at least seven are sleeping at the time so, probably, the problem will be solved before they even log in. The final deduction is: Hagiographer is a troll. And it would be solved if an administrator would haven't decided it was "spam" thus breaking WP:AGF
• In regard to the proposal for deletion, as far as I know I've followed the process. At the time I didn't know a Vfd had already taken place. In fact, that proves it's not so strange to believe that article had to be deleted. You claim I'm trolling against a user (?) As far as I know, articles don't belong to any user (see WP:OWN). And, certainly, the best argument to delete an article is that only a user in all the Wikipedia (the grandson of the subject!) is interested in it. So, from a logical point of view there are only two options taking into account WP:OWN:

1. Several users find the article interesting. Then, why am I trolling against only one? I would be trolling against all of them.
2. Only one user is interested in the article. Then, how can be considered to ask an article to be deleted when only the granson is interested in it so unreasonable?

How can I troll against a blocked user in this case? I know nobody will answer.

• Could somebody explain to me where are those so terrible attacks in the prod notice. Give me an example of other encyclopedia where there is an article about Roberto Weiss (that's one of those attacks, isn't it?)? Is it such a crime to believe that an article has been created by the grandson of its subject because only the grandson is interested in it. Is that worse than this comment by SqueakBox in which he says that: I've chased off legitimate users (his sock puppet Skanking) with "false accusations" o that I don't know what integrity (or honradez in Spanish) means? Nobody cares about that. Of course, posting something like that is not the same that asking an administrator (well, several) for help. Here is other intersting edit in which SqueakBox says to User:Kilo-Lima that he's nothing but a kid, that there is no interest in what he says, that he has to grow up a bit and so on. Nobody cares, but of course posting something like that has nothing to do with following strictly the proposed for deletion process. By the way, when the Pura Paja sock puppetry case was started, Kilo Lima warned that he wasn't going to examine that case as he had a conflict with SqueakBox. That proves he deserved the insults. User Guettarda, in a similar situation, would have acted "differently".

So, as a conclusion:

1. SqueakBox page will continue to be filled with insults against me. I deserve it. Who I believe I am to ask an administrator (well, several) to remove a personal attack against me?
2. The proposed for deletion issue could've been solved easily: a message in my talk page stating that an AfD had already been rejected. Of course, it's better to ignore WP:AGF and claim that I wanted to troll a blocked user because, taking into account WP:OWN, biographies belong only to grandsons. In the prod notice is also stated that "If you created the article, please don't take offense." That implies, evidently, that following the prod process is a direct attack that cannot be tolerated. If mustn' be forgotten that SqueakBox hasn't asked a user page not to be used as a platform to attack him, the worst crime that can be imagined, so some privileges must be recognized.
3. SqueakBox can change other user's comments but if a newbie, after seeing how his comments are removed or changed, after being ignored when he asked several times an arbcom decision to be enforced, after being ignored when he reported personal attacks decides to answer in kind tired of the lawlessness he perceives everywhere then he must be punished once and, two weeks later, threatened and probably punished. Well, I supposed that if instead of combating SqueakBox's vandalism and trusting the administrators I would have become a minion in some administrator's campaigns of harassment then I would have had no problem at all. Perhaps, the Wikipedia is about that.
4. I'm going to be banned for 17 days, until SqueakBox ends his ban. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas states that SqueakBox, and Zapatancas, can be blocked at most for one week for editing Zapatero's related articles or breaking their parole and the same conditions apply to me. As far as I know, I haven't any precedent against me but, well, I will not be blocked for five days, as a warn, but for 17 days. Weeks are different over here. Maybe as claiming I'm attacked anybody is so dubious the punishment must be increased. It's pure logic. I've placed this at the bottom. Nobody is going to read this so when I will be blocked for 17 days this will be a good proof of what are the values dominant here.

I don't know why I've spent any time writing this. I know you're going to pay no attention to it. Every decision that has to be taken has already been taken. Well, it's clear you're having the time of your lifes in the Wikipedia!!! Hagiographer 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think you should be able to take advantage of Squeakbox's block to bait him. You could have placed the prod without personal references; you could even have waited until 9/22 knowing that it was an article that was important to Squeakbox. Regarding the other issues, there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to Arb Enforcement; I may start hanging out there more often but I'm not going back 2 months. Banning you from Zapatero was supposed to stop you from getting on each other's backs but all it has done was move the disruption around. Both of you need to cool off and quit it. As far as the block is concerned, I'm not an admin (yet) and Guettarda hasn't actually blocked you (which is proper if you two have had a dispute), so unless some other admins take an interest, you may get away with baiting Squeakbox this time as well. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the sig issue between SB and H, "he did it first" is not a viable excuse for misbehaviour.

In this case, it is. SqueakBox changed my comments in a page full of administrators experts in the rules and nothing happened. How could I imagine that to do something SqueakBox did with total impunity would mean constant threats against me of being punished forever? As SqueakBox changes and deletes other users' comments whenever he wants I thought it was normal. It's a matter of learning curve. You see people doing something and getting away with it and you think it's accepted. By the way, SqueakBox changes other user comments in his user pages claiming they are personal attacks (example). And Cumbey hadn't been blocked for them. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no conflict with Hagiographer - being on the receiving end of his rather amusing comments in no way constitues "conflict" (if that were the case then someone could attack every admin on the project and be unblockable). I warned him about his disruptive behaviour. That doesn't constitute "conflict".

The Wikipedia is about transparency. If another user has complaint for your unpleasant comments the least you can do is: "I post this opinion about this user, who has complained about me". Every possible conflict of interest must be exposed. Claiming I like picking fights isn't much like being in the "receiving end". In my opinion is quite funny that view of: "User A has a conflict with me, but I have no conflict with him". Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• "If those aren't personal attacks tell me what they are" - I thought it was pretty clear - they are a warning to stop abusing his editing privileges here. Using Wikipedia in this manner is unacceptable. That's a simple statement, not an attack.

To warn a person you need to insult him saying he likes picking fights when you know that person is being insulted? That he had to lay off the rhetoric? SqueakBox had used an anonymous IP address to access the Wikipedia although he was blocked (isn't that unacceptable?) you were warned and you did nothing and you claim you are being impartial?

• Why it is "unfair" to call his actions what they are?

Criticising a person for asking help from the administrator community (as far as I know, administrators have privileges for that, not to prevent insults from being removed) is very unfair, in my opinion. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Guettarda and SqueakBox have been involved in the past in harassment campaigns against other users" - this is a blatent falsehood. A year or two ago User:Cumbey insisted in inserting claims that Javier Solana was the anti-Christ into his article. When SB opposed her, she threatened to have him arrested, and "outed" him on her web page. Her behaviour was bizarre, and I gave SB a barnstar for defending the integrity of the article in the face of threats and intimidation.

I don't know what happened exactly at the time but WP:NPA states clearly that "Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - are contrary to [Wikipedia's] spirit." Why is your right to say other person is "strange"? I've read some comments by Cumbey and, according to her, SqueakBox was all day long reminding her that in Honduras libel offenses are criminal and that she could end up in jail if she ever travel there and so on. So, why don't you share also that information? Where is the difference between SqueakBox's and Cumbey's behavior? Perhaps if you would have listened to her point of view instead of insulting her you all would have felt happier at the end. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I protected SB's user page per his request to end an edit-war. I expressed no opinion on the content of the article, but despite Hagiographer's request for unprotection, repeated appeals to Tony Sidaway, and most recently, admin-spamming, no admin has chosen to unprotect the page or remove the comments that Hagiographer believes to be a personal attack. Nor has any admin asked me to reconsider my page protection.

Guettarda, Tony Sidaway blocked SqueakBox for that comment. No admin has answered me yet, but that in the request for unprotection who answered: Only you know you are being insulted! To block SqueakBox took a month after proving Skanking was his sock puppet. Are you claiming that if no administrator does something something mustn't be done? In that case, you are implying ArbCom's bans means simply you have to create a sock puppet. By the way, this problem has been caused by you. On August 22, SqueakBox posted a message in his talk page (where it can still be found) in which he said: "If you [Guettarda] would like me to remove anything from [my user page] please ask here and I can get one of my workers, who are not banned, to do so." So, even SqueakBox recognizes he has not acted correctly and doesn't mind about removing that insult. Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• With regards to his prod'ing SB's grandfather - the issue isn't whether the action was done in accordance with procedure or not. The issue here is one of motivation. The action smacks of bad-faith intent. After I told Hagiographer to lay off baiting SB, his first Main namespace edit in a week is to prod SB's grandfather - an article which survived a VFD easily when it was last nominated. In addition, his rationale for prod'ing the article was that it was SB's grandfather. I really have a hard time seeing it as anything but abuse of the system. Guettarda 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My rationale was that there are millions of people who have been professors and have written books. My father is an example of that, and nobody knows him in Spain. Can I create about him an article with photographs of our holidays? What's the meaning of WP:AGF in your view? Hagiographer 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruption continues at Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll

Yes. I hate bring it to you but it's disrupting the poll, and the remnants of any goodwill that was ever to be found at highways. Everyone is being pitted at each other again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe keep this threaded with the upper stuff??? ... but I have gotten quite harsh over there, and we have an apparently newish participant who is not happy that I am telling him and everyone else that digging in their heels will get them blocks. In direct contravention of how we normally do things around here... I'm going gonzo and I don't like it but see no other choice ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I am too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave the going gonzo to me. As an editor that edits in this area you probably ought not to take any admin actions at all, but get uninvolved admins to do it instead. I think a compromise is going to get worked out. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought by going gonzo you meant going crazy :) Ah, oh well. Highways is a surprisingly controversial area. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Went gonzo again: here Oh, and "controversial"?: yes. "surprisingly"?: unfortunately no. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record I think your 'being the heavy' in that discussion has helped to move things along. Obviously there are 'agitators' on every side, but there are also occasional real efforts at compromise and consensus in amongst the bickering. I cringe every time I see it ('No, don't threaten the nice users... try to get them to see reason'), but there is progress so I've been keeping a 'hands off' approach. --CBD 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CBD... For the record I hate doing it. It gives me no pleasure whatever and it's corrosive to my own persona here. But I really really see no other way. And there have been fits of progress, in fact yesterday I really thought we were over the hump on NJ. But today we backslid a bit... Regrettably I just handed out a 15 min to SPUI because he was doing the arguing thing again (and then arguing with me when I called him on it). That was just to get his attention, it should be almost over now. He has a lot of value to add if he chooses to. Which I hope he does. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Constant reverting of valid material on Neverwinter Nights 2

The following user (68.149.180.121) has been continually reverting a specific external link to a website which clearly has more relevance than other sites listed. This user has no other contributions to their name other than this and has even attempted to secretly remove the site [27] under teh guise of performing a different function. Several Users (Muchness, Alan De Smet and myself) have attempted to tell this person to stop but they keep coming in, claiming this site is spam and removing it.

Could an admin please take a look at this and let this user know that they are causing a disruption and wasting everyones time by doing this. Thanks Enigmatical 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Duff article

I was just passing by the Hilary Duff article and it seems that it is completely trashed. This is not the first time I have seen it vandalized. Just thought I would let you know... Mappychris 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)mappychris

If you can spot the mistake(s)s and fix it/them all yourself, that would be ideal. If possible, you could revert to the last vandalism-free version. If it seems that the vandalism is persistent and from a single source, then it might be best to report it at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Owwmykneecap

• Owwmykneecap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user seems to have a grudge against me for attempting to get the article Daigo Umehara deleted way back when, and has insisted on leaving disruptive messages on my talk page. I at first left him a mildly hostile message, which I probably shouldn't have done, but since then I've basically ignored the messages and left NPA templates on his page. The messages haven't stopped. Should something be done, or should I just keep ignoring him? 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • More snarky behavior here. Maybe he thinks Wikipedia should be GameFAQs? Danny Lilithborne 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Canckoi

Appears to be using an Open Proxy. [28] Ansell 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone need to do anything about a checkuser or something to spy out the IP they were using at the time? Ansell 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your call, but if you think it is a good idea, go with it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU#Requests_for_IP_check is the place to list such things. (I've listed this there now) --pgk 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It was already done by User:Rory096 and blocking done by User:Dmcdevit. I will note the position for future reference though. Ansell 06:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Giano

Although this user is still editing freely on Wikipedia (hence voiding the only reason that he/she is allowed to do the actions I'm bringing to your attention - the right to leave), Giano (talk · contribs · count) insists on having his/her user page blank, without even a link to the archives which contain numerous warnings. Thoughts? See here for the last diff before the blanking occured. The message on the page states "Please keep this sheet clean per the user's wishes." Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of users have had their talk pages blanked or deleted after leaving Wikipedia or simply because they want a fresh start. As far as I can tell, there are no major warnings that the community would need to have prominently displayed (also, the history is still intact, so one can easily click a previous version to see all the messages). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all still there in the edit history, isn't it? --Carnildo 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But a lot of blocking admins won't check the history to see if a user's block should be extended because of prior misdemeanours. Also, he/she claims to want to keep it blank, but all users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them, and the current attitude expressed by the sentence on the page indicates that all comments will be reverted without response. Daniel.Bryant 07:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's an editor in good standing. He can have a blank user or talk page if that's his preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can always look at the block logs.--MONGO 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please have no concern my block log [29] is still very complete and present. You may remember it Carnildo? Giano | talk 07:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since he/she has reinstated his/her talk page, numerous other issues have developed. Any administrator opinion or action into either is welcome. Daniel.Bryant 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"All users must respond to comments on their talk page before deleting them"? What flap-doodle of a rule is this? And here I've been telling people all over this noticeboard for months that they shouldn't interfere with what people like to do on their userpages. It seems I did not know about this rule, I'm sure I've broken it plenty of times, please block me. Incidentally if the formulation of the sentence previously on Giano's page, bothers you, you might care to check the history to see who wrote it. Hint: it wasn't Giano, it was me. (And not on request.) My administrator opinion is the same advice I've given to many users who get their knickers in a twist on this page about having their stupid warning templates removed from somebody else's page: please do yourself a favour and stop compulsively checking Giano's page. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

I think I have every right to look at every page I feel like on Wikipedia. That's why it's "a free encyclopaedia". So, would you care to change the statement at the top of Giano's talk page to conform with Wikipedia guidelines, or are you going to continue to treat policy with contempt as you did in the post above? I really don't want to have it forcibly changed, but that's the next step. Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the next step is more likely to be a nice long block, if you carry on harassing Giano. Go away and do something constructive. --ajn (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I don't think so. What for? I'm not allowed to request a user remove a personal attack about me from their subpage, in accordance with WP:NPA? I could have been irrational and removed it myself, but instead I tried to be courteous to the user, fix the problems that seemed to have occured, and then ask in a civil manner for the PA to be removed. And how can I be harrasing Giano when he hasn't been at all online? Gee, don't simply read the dispute on face value... Daniel.Bryant 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't think so? Try me. If you consider that Giano's saying on a subpage that you accused him of instigating edit wars (a true statement, on any reasonable interpretation of this) is a "personal attack", you are being far too sensitive. No more. Go and edit an article. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironic, maybe you should too - I have created 112 articles since August 7, and you have created 4 for the same time period. If you notice the diff, I changed my template, as Wikipedians are human, and we do make mistakes. His comment that "Well at least he has a new accusation" is out of line, and your comment attacking my sensitivity is too. "Comment on the contributions, and not on the contributor". All I want is my name removed from the hate-list, and I'd go away. So far, it seems that all everyone wants to do is defend Giano with a giant shield. It's one simple request, which, if people didn't jump in, could have been dealt with between the two users in a civil fashion. The fact that I will probably be blocked unjustly for this (I envisage a nasty RfC) is testimant to the fact that if Giano and I were left alone to discuss this between ourselves, this would all be fine. I can live with the thing at the top of the page, barely, but I want my name removed from the list. That is all. Daniel.Bryant 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Kelly Martin agrees, at least partially, with me. That is good news indeed. Hopefully everyone will now leave myself and Giano alone to work out a comprimise regarding the other issue of his Archive6. Can I assume that this is case closed regarding this issue's development on WP:AN/I? Daniel.Bryant 12:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who opened it in the first place remember. My advice to you is to stay away from Giano for a few days at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So Giano is one of those editors that gets a free pass because of contributions, then? I think perhaps we need to develop a list of who those folks are, so admins know not to waste their time trying to enforce the behavioural standards that apply to everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any behavioral issues that I can see; it seems to have been drummed up out of nothing. Best to let it drop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a general statement that Giano has no behavioural issues? See, for example: [30] (subsequently reverted as incivil) and then also please consider if it's really appropriate to declare on his talk page that admins who don't meet his requirements may be treated rudely. Isn't that failure to assume good faith? That statement was removed by another admin as being pretty incivil, I'd note. Remember also that Giano just got done with a rather long incident. Or is it more of a statement that you didn't see these issues and weren't aware of them? Or that you don't consider them behavioural issues at all? As for "best to let it drop"... if there actually ARE issues but you want it dropped anyway, doesn't that pretty much validate the notion that Giano is in that protected "free pass" class I refer to? I'm not in that class. I can be perfectly civil during a long rant exchange (in which I'm called "naiive", "incompetent", "fool", "stupid", and "devious" without ever responding in kind) with someone apparently in that class, even getting a civility barnstar from one observer, and yet still get taken to task over how things went. That's fine, I'm OK with it, I just want to know if you think such a class exists, or should exist. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see from a thread above this that you're annoyed about another user, but that has nothing to do with Giano. As I said, this is something of nothing. In general, we do give more leeway to good editors, of course, because this is an encyclopedia, and what we should care about is good editing above almost anything else. That doesn't mean people get free passes though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I'm also not sure I'd characterise my concern about anyone's actions as 'annoyance". Merely concern. After all, getting annoyed is counterproductive. I'd still like your perspective on whether you think Giano is completely civil or not, because I am interested in it. I think I gave specific examples, so having you comment on those specifics might be useful instead of just saying it's "something of nothing". I'm glad you agree that people ought not to get free passes, but I am concerned that some seem to, just the same. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully stand with SlimVirgin; it appears that Bryant is trying to make a mountain out of nothing. I find considerably irritating that all this rumour is being made for one of our best editors; in my experience, I've never seen all this devotion with trolls, that often happily remove the warnings on their pages without any intervention. Instead, one of our best editors is being harassed, while so valuable assets for the project should deserve instead some leniency. As for Lar, I understand your anger, as Giano passed the line with you; but he had been badly wronged by Carnildo. Only, please remember this: editors like Giano can't be easily replaced, differently from most.--Aldux 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Aldux: we've now had two different admins remove the same phrasing from Giano's page that Daniel raised as an issue. Go look at the history and see for yourself. So clearly there's something to Daniel's allegations at least in the minds of some administrators. Should Daniel take it personally and work this so hard? Perhaps not. Establish that this is one more incident in a pattern of incivility and let it go, would be my advice. But when you say "As for Lar, I understand your anger", I don't think you do, because I'm not angry. Anger is counterproductive. I'm just concerned, not angry. And my concern is twofold: first that one wrong doesn't justify another. Which is a principle others are taking me to task for elsewhere as well, rightly or wrongly. I embrace the principle and so should others. and secondly, I see in your words that very "free pass" mentality I am concerned about in the larger case. Some allowance for contributions is appropriate, but no one is indispensable. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "no one is indispensible" position, even though it's true, is that it translates into a lack of appreciation of good editors. We have very few really good editors, and we need to hang onto them and show them they're valued. That's all that's meant by giving them a bit of leeway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But this cuts both ways (or even three). Fostering an atmosphere in which someone who is proclaimed by his pals as a "good editor" can be rude to anyone he deems to be "not a good editor" is not helpful. Would you be happy if you were to arrive at someone's talk-page and discover a notice saying you weren't welcome to edit there? This is not even considering the criteria that are being used to judge "goodness", which are inherently subjective and likely to differ wildly from person to person. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree; it quite easy to understand who's a really good editor, and it can be judged objectively by valuing the full respect of wikipedia policies. If we can value if an article is "good" or "feature", the same should go for the single edits that made the article, and for the editors behind them.--Aldux 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you speak at random. Oddly enough, articles authored by your "someone who is proclaimed by his pals as a "good editor"" will grace the Main Page tomorrow on the 6th (Belton House), and again on the 9 (Simon Byrne),[31] as Giano's work has so often done before. I suppose the Featured Article director User:Raul654 must be one of his pals too. HTH. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

This "pals" business is noisome. Bishonen and I are the only "pals" in the group. Everyone else has been a case of serious-minded editors with an interest in the highest standards who have associated with each other out of mutual respect. We've gotten to be friends because we are the folks who try to write serious articles with full development on less than common subjects. Therefore, this set of "super friends" is a bit different from others, as these are all people who met and associated with one another because we hold each others' work in high regard. The "pals" business is just a red herring and a really wreckless bit of distraction. Geogre 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and Aldux and Bishonen and Geogre. I don't know whether I would qualify as a "pal" of Giano, but I do know that he is one of the very best writers of content on Wikipedia. Could Giano be more gentile genteel? Yes, as could we all. But I don't think this amounts to more than a hill of beans. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If I can interject a smile into what's been a miserable day for everyone, that's an interesting typo in Paul August's last comment. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's only a certain amount one can be cirumscribed in one's actions. :-) (The other day, I wrote, on AN/I, "I'm terribly uniformed." I saw the typo and left it, figuring that it was as true as what I meant to say.) Geogre 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"cirumscribed?!" He said gentile! Giano | talk 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I despair of him, he's probably a presbyterian! Giano | talk 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to amuse ;-) Paul August ☎ 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

David Jeremiah

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this but i'm looking for a third party to help settle a dispute. Although this dispute is occuring specifically on the David Jeremiah article i'm more concerned for future use of adding sources to an article, not just this particular article. The dispute can be found on the AfD and also in the discussion section of the David Jeremiah article. Thanks for your time. Bagginator 07:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, this user is upset I reverted several links that went to Amazon.com from a list of books in a bibliography.[32] I even explained why I did it on his talk[33], but he assumed bad faith and posted negative things about me. I recommended he came here to settle it.[34]Arbusto 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this. Admins don't settle content disputes. See dipute resolution, you might try an WP:RfC on the article. --Doc 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What have I written that is negative? I am not upset that you reverted the links, i'm frustrated over having done the work to satisfy your complaint only to have you delete it.Bagginator 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note we don't typically link to Amazon.com (or any specific commercial source) except in extremely extenuating circumstances, which I don't think ever include bibliographies. If it's a book being cited, use the{{ISBN}} template if you know the ISBN, that links to lots of commercial source and the reader can choose as they like. Hope that helps. Please don't take reversion personally. Further dispute resolution should be pursued in the appropriate channels, as Doc says. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:205.157.110.11

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs)Anon. IP is harassing an AfD and myself. Arbusto 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined: 205.157.110.11 is a (rare) respected anonymous contributor and has a right to participate in AFDs. Continued removal of his comments will result in blocks for {{drmafd}} on your part. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Buh? The anon is removing comments -- or does HE get a pass on that? --Calton | Talk 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon in question seems to be removing the strike outs over it's own edits, calling that removal of material is a stretch--205.188.116.65 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I misread the diff. But my point still remains. It's uncivil in my opinion to try and discredit and/or have disciplinary action taken against an anonymous editor who's clearly not a single purpose account solely because you don't like their opinion in your AFD. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD the last AfD votes 205.157.110.11 made that were not Gastrich-my AfDs on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit my a Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) who first edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related(note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University). This was brought to an admisntrators attention [35] and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still I warned an adminst. The AfDs of watch to expect[36] before this anon appears. This anon. user directly came to four AfDs, and being anon. I removed the material with a edit summary explaining.

Lastly, I could care less if the articles are kept. An anon. voting on Gastrich-cruft when the previous day it happene is unsual.Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the anon. has removed my comments.[37] Arbusto 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Viceroy seeds

Can I please speedy delete Viceroy seeds and Viceroy Seeds and infinitely block the author? The articles are the most blatant case of spam on Wikipedia I've seen in several weeks. And what they are advertising is probably illegal too. JIP | Talk 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the images too as part of the illigality of the spammers actions. --AlisonW 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Economy of Paris

This page (Economy of Paris, history) has been the subject of a 7 month edit war, mainly between anons. The page has been on my watchlist since I mistook an edit as vandalism and since then I've requested its protection twice due to the edit war. No discussion is taking place on the talk page, and as soon as protection is lifted the anons start reverting each other again. Recently registered users have been getting involved, and now someone's raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, so I'm bringing it here. -- Steel 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseandricardo

Joseandricardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Science3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I still think this is incorrect. He should (obviously) be considered the same as Jose and Ricardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and possibly blocked as having produced no useful edits and being argumentitive in matters of creating useless redirects and disambig pages in place of redirects, but I don't think he's the same blocked user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo

For quite some time I've noticed User:Ghirlandajo. While he is normally a beneficial contributor to articles and works hard to maintain high quality articles, I've consistently seen incivility and trolling coming from him. I recently went through his contributions from the past few days and came up with these edits.

Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff — Template:Wp-diff

I have been involved with Ghirlandajo in the past so I'd rather not block him myself, but I'm wondering what other administrator's opinions are about whether something should be done or not about Ghirlandajo's behavior. Should more evidence appear, an arbcom case may be in order, as well. Cowman109^Talk 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him to tone it down [38]. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• He has only passed his opinions. you may not like them, but they are not obscene and some people may say to the point. There is no case in Wiki-law to either block him or take him to the arb-com. Giano | talk 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking him for these comments would be a supremely bad idea. Especially in cases that are so (sigh) controversial, we should let people express disagreement, or even disgust, with how things are being done. There's a difference between personal attacks and strongly-worded critcism. That said, asking him to tone is down is surely reasonable- I just hope nobody actually blocks over this. Friday (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I consider that his reaction is a bit strong, but entirely stays within reasonable boundaries. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

His response to my request to tone it down was defiant and inflammatory [39]. Three hours to cool down.

15:32, 5 September 2006 Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 3 hours (Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility) --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would have been better to just let it go. 3 hours isn't much, sure, but a block under these circumstances merely fans the flames. Friday (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that he is a valuable contributor in the article namespace, though I feel that his interactions with users are damaging to the project and its contributors and he seriously needs to tone things down, which is why I brought this here. Cowman109^Talk 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not gross incivility, that is vitriol from you. Giano | talk 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo has persistently been uncivil and edit warred. I've made my position clear on the matter, suggesting arbitration first months ago, and again since then ([40] and [41]) but the kind of people he is in disputes with are the kind of people that prefer conflict to dispute resolution. Perhaps that has changed now. Dmcdevit·t 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you could provide any samples of my incivility or edit warring during the last month or so. The affair with Piotrus has nothing to do with the issue of Carnildo's RfA. I don't know how I was "involved" with the author of this thread. At least I don't remember having met him before. Neither do I remember him posting any concerns on my talk page. When a stranger comes to WP:ANI and asks to block a well-established contributor... and he gets instantly blocked by a person whom that contributor criticised an hour ago... well, it is called... Wiki-justice, apparently. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet in the present case, his reaction, if a bit strong, does not qualify as blatant incivility. (I'm not talking about the exchange with Tony, but about the original diffs posted by Cowman). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit disgusted as well. Since we're writing an encyclopedia, as a rule of thumb, mistreating prolific contributors is generally speaking a bad idea. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A 3 hour block for a "defiant and inflammatory response" (I reviewed it, I agree) to a very civil request to mellow out a bit is not in any way mistreatment. Prolific contributor or not. Repeat after me: "Allowances, yes. Free passes, no." ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which "allowances" do you talk about? That you allowed me to write Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) and Svensky Monastery before you blocked me, for reasons unknown, and prevented me from posting other articles today? Well, thank you for such "allowances". Their only result is to spawn martyrs of unfair blocks and admin persecution. Who did you punish by your block - me, yourself or the project? And what is the *real* aim of it all, if me, Giano, ALoan, etc are advised to leave? Who would write articles for us? Carnildo? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out just above while answering to Dmcdevit, what shocks me the most is not Tony's block in itself, but rather two other things.

First, initial Ghirla's remarks (again, I'm not talking about his reply to TS) were certainly strong criticism, but calling them incivil, or worse yet, "trolling" is actually a bit far-fetched.

Second, you will agree that the circumstances during which all these things were said were qualified by more than one users as controversial. Consequently, trying to quiet things down in such a clumsy way is imho a bad way to proceed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any history associated with this user, but the comments listed—including the "defiant response"—are not trolling, they are slightly angry and do not warrant any preventive block. —Centrx→talk • 16:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think that Tony doing the blocking himself looks particularly bad. It comes off looking like a case of "Oh, you disagree with me? Alright, you're blocked." Now Ghirlandajo is complaining of being bullied- is this what we wanted? Friday (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say that Tony's block is an abuse of admin's rights, to put it mildly. Ever since I raised the issue of striking a balance between admins's indecisivenss leading to trollfest on one hand and admins through the hasty and unchecked application of the admin tools harming Wikipedia and its editors, I've seen no headway to this. Ghirlandajo's entries that started this whole thing could have been milder but in no way they warranted a block. Particularly, a 3 hour block is a totally useless action whose only purpose may be intimidation by adding to the user's block log. If it's purpose was warning, it is no more effective than a verbal warning added at talk. I find the particular action of Tony, normally a reasonable and useful admin with no nonsense judgement to be dangereous, unwarranted and harmful and I strongly call on him to take a breath and think it over instead of going into the insinctive self-defence and/or defiance.

I consider admins who don't hesitate to use their judgement to fend off trolls an important asset of Wikipedia and Tony is one of such admins. At the same time, whoever takes it upon herself to use the judgement bock should not do it carelessly. I hope Tony will post to Ghirla in a different tone to put this matter behind. I also hope that some admin will have a courage to click the unblock button, even if symbolically, to have a blocking log show that the block was controversial.

I would be sorry to see my hopes remain just a wishful thinking. --Irpen 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any dispute with Ghirlandajo (I honestly don't think I've ever encountered him before today). I blocked him because his response to a request to cool it was defiant and inflammatory. I hope that he will take this time to reflect on his interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I tend to believe in your honesty, although both of your assertions above are actually incorrect. I criticised you and Kelly Martin, an hour later you blocked me, citing that very diff as an offense, and now you and Kelly say that you are perfectly impartial? Well, it's all that old "punishing admins vs. hard-working editors" history for me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some reflection all around would be good. All too often, peoploe create drama where none was needed. Friday (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I asked you to think it over. You posted at once instead with something that was obvious to come out from the "at once" post. Please give it another thought and don't respond at once. I stand by my opinion that the block was harmful and unwarranted and I would like to see the harm undone, that's all. No one questioned your right to use your judgement or your good faith. You made a mistake and anyone is entitled to. Give it a thought. --Irpen 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given my block reason and expanded on it. I've no objection to review and undoing of the block, but would rather see this done by someone who honestly believes that it was harmful and that good would be done by undoing it. I have of course reflected on this at length (even before you suggested that I do) and that is still my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly, people. An admin warning an editor that their conduct is unacceptable, and then subseqeuently blocking that editor for continuing the same conduct, is not an abuse of administrative authority. Tony did not become "in conflict" with Ghirlandajo when he warned Ghirl to stop being a dick. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know what is the purpose of blocking wikipedians who contributed hundreds articles to this project, especially in such borderline cases as this one. What's the point - to punish? to scare? to show that it's you who have the tools? People with my experience tend to be immune to short-term blocks. You should have blocked for a month. An advise for the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is blaming Tony for an ethics violation of blocking someone who he had been in conflict with. The point here is the honest judgement error. The block was unwarranted and hasty, which does not make it a bad faith block. As for behavior, the behavior did not call for the block in the first place. Anyway, since Tony is sure he's done the right thing after this discussion, I guess there is nothing to convince him otherwise, I guess. --Irpen 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. No honest observer could ever interpret Ghirlandajo's comments as "gross incivility." Several of the comments cited are him telling other users to ignore drama and focus on the encyclopedia. None of them is any any way uncivil or a personal attack. In one of them, he complains about admins being more concerned with blocking editors than with building an encyclopedia. For this, a well-known block-happy admin issues a stern warning on his talk page, accusing him of gross incivility. His response was certainly defiant, but also civil and in my opinion just. Of course he is now blocked, for three hours to "calm down". Ludicrous. I can't imagine how any sane person could think this block would help the situation at all. Breath-takingly inappropriate. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

POV and incorrect assertions

Hopefully I am reporting this to the right place. In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_PC I have continued to revert the bits of Igor Sotelo's contributions that are POV or are incorrect assertions, but he continues to revert my corrections. We have discussed on the talk page in length but cannot come to concensus. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thankyou for your time. Timeshift 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsure why I have not got a response from an admin. If this is the incorrect place to request this, please let me know where I should be doing so. Thankyou. Timeshift 04:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User Spinoza1111

After the mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-15_Immanuel_Kant this user has continued to post disparaging remarks at that page, and has now placed the following remarks on my talk page:

Spinoza1111 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)These comments alone constitute evidence that "mediation" == "kangaroo court". You're an idea vandal and a thug, because instead of reworking new contributions, you erase them and start personal attacks, misusing mediation without giving the target an opportunity to reply. You also make legally actionable aspersions of "plagarism" (sic). If you continue this behavior, you may find yourself in a real court of law.

I had to put up with your shit to make two elementary enhancements to the article, to add the well-known link between Kant and Brouwer/Heyting, and to raise the concerns (bruited not only by Brand Blanshard but also by Bertrand Russell) about philosophical style. The latter happens to be key to understanding Kant because, as P. F. Strawson wrote in 1959 (look up the goddamn cite yourself), Kant was at the bounds of sense.

What I find most amusing about your "contribution" to wikipedia: it's all about process and procedure and can indeed be performed by someone ignorant of texts, who covers up this ignorance with babble about "citation". There are those of us, and I am one, who were publishing papers with citations while you were watching scooby doo, sonny boy, so watch your mouth.

Instead of the dialogue characteristic of wikipedia at its finest, I was harassed, libeled, and subject to a "mediation" process that consisted of snide personal attacks and in which I wasn't even given an opportunity to reply.

So fart in a bottle and paint it. It's trolls like you that will make a joke out of Wikipedia.

What are my options to get this user off my back and simply accept the decision? Amerindianarts 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have issued him with two personal attack warnings (including a final one) for these and related comments. This user is under careful observation and is very close to getting blocked. My suggestion is you should ignore his provocations and continue to edit. If he continues with these personal attacks or other disruptive edits, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Best, Gwernol 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Spinoza1111 for a week, for several egregious personal attacks made after the final warning. --ajn (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism uncaught for over a day

Hey, what's the deal with this? It persisted for over a day. --128.8.73.61 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• It was formatted so as not to display in the article -- looks like a linkspammer, though my open proxy test came back negative. NawlinWiki 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lewisranja and 220.1.234.8

I've moved this report from WP:AIV alphaChimp^(talk) 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Lewisranja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 220.1.234.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same person) Please see Talk:transphobia. This user first started as the above named IP, and created an account once given final warnings for both WP:NPA and WP:VAND. As an IP, this user repeatedly violated WP:3RR to do so (as of course, a vandal would). It shows in the articles history that I am not the only person that finds this users edits disruptive, in spite of everything discussed with him. Please review because the situation is certainly somewhat intolerable. Despite leaving a message requesting help on the talk page of two admins, a listing on WP:NPA, and a wikiquette alert, so far nobody has doene anything whatsoever to diffuse this situation since the users vandalism was reverted by said two admins a few days ago. Crimsone 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The user continues to vandalise under both the account and the IP. Another user today equally considered the edis this morning to be vandalism, citing the talk page as evidence. I have since done the same today. Could I please plead again for some kind of review of this situation, because it's not something that anybody other than an admin would have any authority over. Kindest regards, Crimsone 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the users reverts were in good faith (which they clearly aren't - they're vandalism, or POV pushing at the very best), the user has just once more violated WP:3RR again under the user Lewisranja. This of course even discounts any edits made by his alter ego, 220.1.234.8. While I appreciate that administrators are in fact very busy voluteers, surely this user has demonstrated enough contempt for policy, dispute resolution, consensus, and of course myself to warrant somebody saying at least something about the issue? Crimsone 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to step in her to clear my name. That being - Lewis Ranja. What Crimsone continues to refer to as "vandalism" is nothing more than a good-faithed effort to bring some neutrality and objectivity to what is, otherwise, an extremely biased (bordering on Orwellian) entry. I have made efforts to negotiate with Crimsone. I have altered my wording of the edit and have even made an effort to simply place a "Disputed Neutrality" ta to the top of this article. Both were removed. Crimsone's accomplice in what has become a severe act of serial vandalism-by-deletion has simply come to his aid so that they both permit this article to continue to provide Wikipedia with a very leftwing slant. Despite Crimsone's socio-political disagreements with me, I assure you that I am not a vandal and am, if anything, the victim of one. Lewisranja 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All I need to say is that reasons for my actions are detailed on the articles talk page. They speak for themselves. Also, please do not assume my gender, and please don't accuse me of being in some kind of cabal because nothing could be further from the truth and there is no evidence for the accusation. I don't have an accomplice. The nonsense being added has been reverted by more people than just myself and the editor you mention anyway - it's a consensus I have no political position, nor a social one - only one stemming from wikipedias desire for accurate and informative encyclopedic articles with a neutral point of view Were the edit in any way informative or relevant to the subject of the article (see article talk for explanation), I would have no problem with it. Crimsone 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only am I being attacked, but I am now being attacked in my report of being personally attacked. My character is being defamed, my clinical depression mocked, and having outright lies told about me. Somebody please please please help. As you'll see from my contrib history, I've been on wiki all night helping others where I can - there's no good reason I should be suffering an unrelenting tirade like this. Crimsone 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 26

1. Someone should look into User:A Link to the Past's behavior on the deletion review for List of beat 'em ups.
2. Since Xoloz participated in the discussion we need another admin to close this one. I don't know which way this is leaning, but it's been running long enough. Thanks, ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned A Link on his own talk page to calm down. As for the closure, I'll leave that to someone else. --InShaneee 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ti mi- publicgirluk sock?

User:Ti mi has the same MO as publicgirluk and Courtney Akins. Some of her images have been moved to Commons, where there's been some concern over the legitimacy of them. I suggest a checkuser and probably a block like we did to the others. --Rory096 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: She, or whomever, uploaded the masturbation Image to Wikipedia Commons but it was deleted as too much of a risk. I suggest we do that here to until the Image has proven it's copyright status. The Images on Wikipedia are Image:Messeins.jpg and Image:Masturbation_techniques.jpg — The Future 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted them for now. If a decision is made that would include them feel free to reverse my action. JoshuaZ 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I support your actions. Admin actions are not set on stone or irreversably, erring on the side of caution is good. -- Drini 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, as one of the more "err on the side of caution" voices (not "conservative" voices) at Wikipedia: Images of identifiable persons (or whatever the exact name is), I fully support deleting until the images are proven licit. The stakes are too high, and the "people" doing the uploading too unknown. Geogre 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed every edit of the three users in question, I find nothing whatsoever in common between Publicgirluk and Courtney Akins in MO, or between Ti mi and Courtney Akins. There are significant differences apparent also between Publicgirluk and Ti mi, not least because the latter, unlike the former, has uploaded a photo which has been processed to remove the facial details, thus preventing personal identfication; there are other differences which I am not making public to avoid impersonation of either user. Tyrenius 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I roughly concur with Tyrenius. However these pictures are problematic enough (indeed more problematic than the PGUK pics) and we need to discuss whether these pics are wanted. JoshuaZ 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're right, the specifics are different, for example the lesser quality of these pictures, the concept of posting sexually explicit pictures at this particular time, when we just happen to have two others doing it is very suspicious. It could be the same person changing his methods slightly so people wouldn't think it's him, or it could be a copycat. --Rory096 04:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Asperger_syndrome#SandyGeorgia

I need an admin to look at this. Looks like mostly a personal attack against User:SandyGeorgia. That sort of discussion should be removed, but when it is, it gets reverted. --James Duggan 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if my view on this is welcome here - if not it is easily removed - but to me that does seem to start off honestly/legitimately and develop into somewhat of a lengthy tirade against SandyGeorgia herself. There are certainly one or two reasonably clear personal attacks in there, and only an admin would be best placed to take a stance on those given the limited severity, but I'm particularly concerned that the articles talk page may not be the place to talk about a given editor of that article in such a way and almost as if he or she is not there. Crimsone 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. Joelito (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the salient and unresolved points. There is nothing to be gained by brushing this issue under the carpet.

I do have the advantage of all of you in knowing exactly who User:SandyGeorgia is and have years of experience of what she is capable of in terms, not only of abusing Wikipedia for her own ends, but also damaging any editor with whom she associates.

Strangely I had arrived at exactly the same conclusions before I even guessed her identity...and was just as alarmed by her behaviors.

Here is a list of previous discussions:

• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [42]
• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [43]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Zeraeph [44]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by SandyGeorgia [45]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Keyne [46]
• Talk:Asperger_Syndrome the discussion referred to in above discussion initiated by Keyne [47] 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• [[48]]--Zeraeph

Enough. Your stalking, allegations, and accusations of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc. at User:SandyGeorgia end here. This is your only warning. Either present evidence at the ArbCom or desist your apparent personal quest. Joelito (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joelr31. All the above links show is a huge reluctance on your part to back up your accusations of skulduggery against SandyGeorgia with any evidence whatsoever. Cut out the personal attacks, and go through the dispute resolution process (but this time, engage with it properly - nobody is going to accept "it's too difficult for me to explain but I think she's horrible so you should too"). --ajn (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no "reluctance" you only have to look at her actual behaviors with an open mind, particularly towards, for example User:SuperFlanker. Some very nasty, manipulative double standards being imposed there.

I have a life, I don't have 18 hours a day to track back every convoluted little strategy for ARBCOM (thus satisfying the rather sick needs of this individual who has stalked me for years with JUST that in mind). I will not enable her by silence either. I feel it is the responsibility of admins (that goes with the power) to actually OBSERVE a situation like this for themselves, with an open mind, not to try and brush it under the carpet.

What I will be doing is approaching the authorities in her locality with a view to getting her the help and restraint she needs. I have ample evidence against her real identity to ensure that. When that happens she will vanish. Problem solved. Though I doubt if anyone will bother to apologise to me for their error.

I also take serious issue with Joelito's threat here and on my talk page to "do something unspecified" unless I disregard my own conscience, as well as the facts and knowingly enable this person to continue their abuses. I have 8 years in which to form a very well rounded opinion of this individual based up reality, that, and not the threats of an admin, must dictate my choices. --Zeraeph 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not make it clear that it was your only block warning for disruption, personal attacks, etc. Joelito (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances (which aren't really anything I personally should get involved with), surely you can see that the talk page of an article is an inappropriate place for that kind of discussion at least? Crimsone 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't initiate the discussion...everybody forgets that... --Zeraeph 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph has again brought her vendetta to the Asperger Talk and has linked the discussion to the Administrative NoticeBoard's discussion about her behavior. This is seemingly in violation of the precise directive, here and on her talk page. 152.163.100.65 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a little evidence [49]. An anonymous user on the same service [50] User:SandyGeorgia admits [51] to claiming that the discussion was initiated at least two weeks earlier than it was ([52] and [53]. Enough subtle little distortions like this completely rewrite history or pretty much anything else. (Incidentally, by purely innocent coincidence 152.163.100.65 is ALSO an AOL web proxy server.) --Zeraeph 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to get very angry here because it seems User:Joelr31 wants to demand evidence with one hand and delete it with the other [54]. What kind of sense does that make? How fair is that? Let me stress that I have sent him hard evidence that the last editor in that discussion (bar myself) is ALSO an AOL user. I have yet to receive the courtesy orf a reply. WHAT is the point in producing evidence that only gets suppressed or ignored? --Zeraeph 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Joel is not just some user. He is an administrator - the final decision makers here at Wikipedia. He didn't tell you that you had no basis, and he explicitly told you how to pursue this through channels. It is scarcely "evidence" to tell someone that Sandy posts from home (AOL) as well as work (and on the road for work and vacation - hotel access) and therefore is to be found post with many many IP addresses since she stated all these things last Friday when you used Wiki to do some phishing on 3 different users. This is merely stalling tactics on your part.

In the meantime, you have again deleted an admin's warning from your Talk:Zeraeph page and you have reposted the repeatedly admin-deleted SandyGeorgia material to Talk:Asperger_syndrome You obviously have no respect whatsoever for authority or for Wikipedia, no less Joel.205.188.116.65 02:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER AOL Web Proxy Server [55]...no disrespect to Joel but I'd like to meet some of his verzion fanclub before I die. Am I the only one who finds this a BIT much for coincidence? That not only does SandyGeorgia, but EVERY SINGLE anon poster on this subject, and AT LEAST one subscribed (evidence provided to Joel) should post from AOL? (Though NOT Joel's doing, I am certain of that much...I had no option but delete his warning as he incidentally identified the stalker I have no real option but refer to anonymously, against protocol...any time he cares to reword it to avoid that, it will stay.)--Zeraeph 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have already posted all your suspicions and named your supposed stalker/stalkers last week in the last Cabal and in your CheckUser (both now closed) and earlier today on ASTalk. How can it suddenly be a big secret? 205.188.116.65 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How do YOU suggest that so many random AOL users just happen to come across this dispute and feel compelled to comment on one side, and one side only?

AS for your question, while other edits get buried under the weight of editing, and no one sees then, unless they are determined to dig, in fact, any user who feels identified is entitled to request the deletion from history, my talk page is to remain and thus doesn't even identify you. --Zeraeph 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, or you could have just followed protocol for editing articles and instead of removing it, you could have reworded part of it to take out the indentifying info if that's what you feel you must do. At least it would appear as cooperation. As said many ties, that disscussion does not belong on the articles talk page. It can be found via the diffs if you need to use it as evidence. ARBCOM is the place for that kind of discussion if it's truly nessecary, and it's up to you whether you wish to take it there or not - the fact is that it's where it belongs, not on the articles talk page. (personally, I'm a happy customer of plus.net - no bias here)Crimsone 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I would rather leave him the freedom to do his own rewording as there really isn't an obvious way to take the ID out of the existing wording without considerable alteration of meaning, and, as an admin, he should really have had a BIT more sense than to identify the person I was referring to. Also, he restored MORE than his comment which, to me, was a bit iffy...

I genuinely feel that the previous discussion should not be removed without those who initiated it having some resolution, or failing that the discussion should be linked. I am not phoney, I can't fake co-operation I don't feel. So here is a link to the evidence of pretty obvious abuse you just chose to bury [56]. I know this situation for so many years, just about the WORST thing you can do is try to brush it under the carpet.

Apart from which: "WE ARE AOL - YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED"! ;o) --Zeraeph 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A fellow Star Trek Fan I see :D. You do understand of course(?) that should you need to, you can infact link to an old revision of a page - as long as nobody edits the article from that page. It's best to just post a link to the last diff, because it will list the full page below the highlighted differences anyway. :) (well, you can post it where needed except to delibeerately draw attention on the articles talk of course)Crimsone 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OH I know THAT...but my point is more that when the editors who raised the issue return it would be nicer for them if it hadn't just been dismissed, as though they, and their point of view didn't matter. I reaqlise that a lot of the time, when people raise the same issues on Wikipedia it's a little bit stage managed, but not in this instance. I do not even know the editors who raised it, and I don't agree with all the changes they wished to make, but what I DO support is their right to make them without permission of User:SandyGeorgia,and their right to query a situation where that is not the case.

All of which happened long before I had the first CLUE who User:SandyGeorgia really was or just how bad it could get. --Zeraeph 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have an anon editor reverting and rewording on behalf of User:Joelr31 [57]. I cannot imagine any way in which it is appropriate for an anon editor to reword anybody's comments on anybody's talk page. (see WP:TPG). AS a matter of fact there is absolutely no reason why I should not delete other remarks, or even this remark from my user talk Help:Talk page, but I am happy to leave the warning WHEN it has been reworded by the original author and no-one else. --Zeraeph 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS And the above edit [58] was AOL AGAIN [59]. I cannot believe that nobody will acknowledge this blatant sockpuppetry. --Zeraeph 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My Suggested Solution

As long as User:SandyGeorgia is aware that she is being observed she will probably do no harm to Wikipedia (which is surely the point?). I suggest that a previously uninvolved totally impartial, Admin observe her. I am quite happy to be similarly observed.

I have the right to explain on my talk page why I will always be abrupt and standoffish now (I will be, nothing I can do about that) so that innocent editors never suspect it is "something they have done". I have not even specified GENDER let alone identified anyone. --Zeraeph 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph blocked

See User talk:Zeraeph. --ajn (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

protected page move by admin without consensus

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I don't think it fits requested moves, since it's a violation of that process. EL C took it upon him self to move 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict to 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, without any consensus for the move. Others were already deciding where to move the page, in accordance with requested move proceedure - at the time of the move, users were roughly evenly split (6:5) on the issue. After questioning him on his and the main talk page, El C explained that the reason he moved it was because he'd held a discussion (in fairness, he did) in which he had a consensus (sort of). However, he completely ignored the poll running directly above where he held his discussion. His dislike of democracy and polls is irrelevant to the move - the process was already underway, and ignoring the discussion of other wikipedians, he went ahead and moved the page. I'm aware this is similar to a content dispute, but I'm not asking because I think conflict is a better name, but because he didn't move it with the consensus of the discussion. Since the page is protected from moves, I'd appreciate it if an admin could move the page back to where it was until the process is complete. Thank you. Iorek85 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with lore here. There is a 50/50 split in the current RM discussion on the talk page. There is no consensus for a move and none should have been done at this time. The move should be reversed as soon as possible and any move held off until a consensus develops. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the wheel warring on the part of User:Arthur Rubin. El_C 02:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

rallying hate against user

User:ShortJason was indef blocked by Tony due he spamming talk pages trolling and trying to rally a group whose only and explict purpose would be to "remove Drini" (sic). See his user page and the spamming on talk pages: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

Just in case someone wants to review it. I wonder why wasn't he blocked before, given that several admins got his message. So far, at least another user has expressed openly support for such "cruzade": User:ARbiteroftruth -- Drini 00:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser showed he being sockpuppet of Don Brooks , Forever Old , ShortJason , ShootJar , Orange Fever , Orange Rocks , Orange Forever , Orange Rules , Garfunkel4life , John Serge, some of them admitted sockpuppets of TJWhite (see that userpage for more sockpuppets). Gee.. I see now why so much support for CVU .. all clones :P -- Drini 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence suggesting an actual involvement of any of these editors in CVU? Or were they just trolls jumping at a chance to mob an administrator? --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they just showed up to comment on the DVU deletion debate. pschemp | talk 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JimRaynor55

Over the last two months, JimRaynor55 has decided to certain material from the Star Wars canon article, persistently disregarding what appears to be a consensus for the information to remain from the more experienced and contributing editors. Nearly all of his activity since June has been either trying to remove a link that appears to be a valid, well-reasoned take on the subject, or exhibiting a consistent pattern of abusve rhetoric and personal attacks on others who disagree with him or his conclusions. Other editors have presented their arguments for inclusion, which Raynor either dismisses out of hand or ignores, and continues to delete information from the article. He will not accept reason or compromise, and has stated so publicly in his comments and edit summaries. [74] In short, he refuses to work with others unless he gets his own way, and I'd like to see what measures can be taken to limit his edits to this article until he learns to work with others. TheRealFennShysa 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Server Down?

Was it just me, or did anyone else have a problem acessing Wikipedia, for the last few minuets. Old TI-89 (u|t|c) 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been intermittant outages all day. It seems to be a common occurance at the moment, but no doubt the technicians are working hard at the issues behind the scenes. :) Crimsone 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Phentermine linkspammer 212.180.156.148

212.180.156.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to have added around 15 external phentermine spam-links to articles. Could an admin roll these back these please? - David Oberst 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Already done, and the IP has been blocked for 24 hours. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 U is evading indef block

Hello this user has clamed to be this 11 year old blocked user. Christy06 posted on addmisson on Leroyencyclopediabrown's talk page. Cute 1 4 U has a history of sock abuse. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The user has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Cute 1 4 U [75]. Cowman109^Talk 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if i'm blocked. --Christy06 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, cause you are. pschemp | talk 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick turn around. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this, I have reopened a checkuser case on Cute 1 4 u to discern any other accounts she may have created as well as block her IP from creating any new accounts. Ryūlóng 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously banned user User 24.94.120.140

This anon user was previously banned (according to his own addmission here[76]. he is back, and today recieved two warnings on his talk page, one for 3RR, another for personal attacks. He keeps removing these warnings, thoiugh he has been warned not to. Probably a good idea to block this IP for a while. Isarig 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, You could have reported this on Wikipedia:administrator intervention against vandalism on vandalism, and WP:3RR would be good for reporting edit war. Daniel's page ☎ 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But he has not violated 3RR, and what I'm complaining of is his removal of warnings from his Talk page, and his persoanl attacks. Isarig 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

May be, You could make request for semiprotection on his talk page for removing all warnings. That's best option. Daniel's page ☎ 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chifumbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3RR violations, personal attacks, removes warnings and block notices from talk page, posted threats, assorted racially motivated vandalism, ignored several vandalism warnings, added a comment in AFD pretending to be another user -- Spring3100 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3rr violations seem to be from about 3 weeks ago, when the user was very new, can you put in some diffs? The edits I see look fine, from a somewhat liberal but reasonable and well explained POV, the user uses a different name in their signature every time they sign, which is not against any policy, they're clearly not impersonating anyone. It looks like User:Spring3100 may possibly be the same as User:Giuliani Time, with whom Chifumbe seems to have had conflict before. Again, unless some good diffs can be offered, I don't think any action should be taken. Mak (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• User also has a serious WP:NPOV problem. Spring3100 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360#Hardware

There is an ongoing content dispute regarding whether or not a laundry list of detailed hardware specifications should remain or be replaced by a concise and abriged summary. The consensus seems to be very much for this latter option, but there are two editors who insist that abridging is "information removal", "harms the article", and is "vandalism". Numerous attempts have been made to reason with the users, get them to engage in discussion on the talk page, suggest alternative solutions, etc. In general the response has merely been edit warring. They will revert to the laundry list version no matter how much work other editors do to try and comply with what consensus already has decided. Most of the relevant discussion can be found here: [77]. A few examples of the blanket reverts: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. Some very telling statements made by the two dissenting editors: [83] (edit comment), [84] (edit comment), [85] (edit content)

I'm getting sick of beating this issue to death and getting absolutely nowhere. Some uninvolved administrator guidance would be much appreciated. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 06:22Z

I'm not an administrator, but perhaps a solution to the dispute may be to put the full specs on a sub-page of the article, and leave the abriged version of the specs in the article itself with a wikilink to the full specs (or perhaps a show/hide option in the article) Crimsone 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, subpages in article space are not allowed per WP:SP. A separate Xbox 360 hardware article would be more likely, but I doubt even that is necessary. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That was suggested, and I'm not against revisiting it, but frankly I don't see much point in creating an article that reproduces a press release that we already link in the article proper. Anyway, I don't need help with negotiation right now, I need help with users that don't seem to regard the conflict resolution process at all. -- mattb @ 2006-09-06 06:35Z

I wouldn't normally suggest it, but while WP:SP is a worthy guideline, it does specifically state that common sense can be used and some exceptions are permissable. No doubt an admin will have a view on this - I merely suggested it as a means to resolve the dispute. There is of course always the hide/show method.

As I say, it was only a suggestion, and I'm sorry if it is of little assistance to you. Crimsone 06:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Israelbeach

Israelbeach has reactivated one of his dormant sockpuppets, User:Givati, and attacked me in his edit summary: [86]. Please keep an eye on him for me. Despite the support of at least one administrator, I myself will not block this user, on principle. As long as all he does is add a sentence here or there to Israeli current events articles, I'm okay with him editing. But knowing him, I am afraid he is likely to go back to linkspamming for the Israeli News Agency (his personal website), posting my personal information or otherwise attacking Wikipedians such as myself and Danny. I don't feel that should be tolerated here. --woggly 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobatron's sockpuppet

Hi, A new user with a somewhat unfriendly username has been created.[87] I don't want to overreact, but on balance, I suspect it's worth an instant block. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blurg and Blurg blurg da blurg blurg were that user's only contribs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ben Aveling 07:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME prescribes immediate blocks for usernames that contain Wikipedia concepts/jargon, and names that give the impression that the user is here to cause trouble. This is both. Grandmasterka 08:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:The real Barbara Schwarz Request block on sockpuppet and soft block on dynamic AOL IP

Ms. Schwarz is a banned user of Wikipedia (see User:The real Barbara Schwarz).

JohnPower (talk · contribs · count) has suddenly appeared on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz pages, and is making threats and personal attacks. The IP address 172.190.37.157 is associated with edits on this page signed by this user, and this is an AOL proxy IP address. Barbara Schwarz has posted to the Usenet using an AOL account before. [88]

I request a block on the new sockpuppet and a soft block on the dynamic AOL IP.

AFC

AFC appears to be screwed. Not sure why. --82.35.102.213 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)