Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This project page is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause valued anonymous editors who require administrator assistance, however the vandalism to this page was out of control, preventing effective functioning of the page. We promise the page will be unsprotected soon. In the interim, please feel free to contact an active administrator directly.

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

JzG's personal attack

Revision as of 15:54, January 4, 2007 (edit) JzG (Talk | contribs) (->Deep breaths :) - Um, right.) <- Older edit Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2007 (edit) (undo) JzG (Talk | contribs) (->Deep breaths :) - update) Newer edit -> Line 26: Line 26:

--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)  :--> Also, you are not hated; everyone is welcome on Wikipedia, and so long as you go about it civilly, we can have these users answer for their actions. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- * Your hysterical outpourings on WP:PAIN are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that you are dismissed as a crank. Would you like to go back and try again, citing diffs and without the capitalisation? Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) + * I removed your reports from WP:PAIN since there is no evidence of attacks provided. In future please bear in mind that we need, at the very least, information as to where the supposed attacks occurred. I did spend some time looking into it but the only aggression I could find was from you. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

-The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yrgh (talk o contribs).

...Are you asking a question, or what? --Masamage 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Yrgh believes that JzG's comments above are a personal attack and he wants to rant about it! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah. The top of this page says "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" for a reason. Apparently you know about WP:PAIN to report personal attacks, you can take this there but if all he did was call you a crank, I seriously doubt any uninvolved admins will care enough to block him or whatever. --W.marsh 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this user has made a habit out of accusing... everyone... of personally attacking him (and in a rather disruptive way at that) after he was confronted by multiple editors about a series of dubious edits. He has previously been mentioned on AN/I here. -bbatsell ?? 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why wasn't anything done about it then? D: And at what point is the community's patience exhausted with Mr. Yrgh?-Ryulong (******) 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also wonderful.-Ryulong (******) 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just marvelling at that myself. --Masamage 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef per that latest ... marvel. Can't say I've ever seen anything quite like that. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, 100% speedy endorse blocking this worthless twat. I wasted Actual Time checking out his baseless report. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Calm down. Of course, I support blocking this user, but it is a personal attack to call someone a "worthless twat". There's no need to start calling people names, even though they are incredibly frustrating. Yuser31415 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've already posted to Guy's user talk page. It seems out of character and I hope that was a typo for twit. Durova^Charge 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But in reality, it's not out of character at all. [1][2][3][4][5][6] ATren 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. --Masamage 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell freezes over

I'd better put this under a new section. Based on Guy's post above and the subsequent diffs, which do check out, I've left him an imminent block warning for incivility. It's the dead of night in his part of the world right now and he hasn't edited since, so I'll wait for him to log on and respond, but basically what I've said is that I'll block him for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language. I've never blocked an admin before - much less one I respect as much as him - but it would be a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. I welcome the feedback of other users regarding this decision.[7] Durova^Charge 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that even, though I feel sheepish doing so. Guy seems like a very good editor, but I read the above evidence the same way you do, especially in light of this. Can't be allowed, even (especially?) from a respected admin. --Masamage 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't support such an action. While I am strongly opposed to editors (especially admins) making uncivil comments, I don't think that blocking is the right way to go about this; all it's going to do is create bad feelings. In this case, an apology from Guy would be suffice, provided he does not repeat his behavior. Yuser31415 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I interpreted Durova's actions as asking for apology and change in behavior first and foremost. The block would only be if he refuses, which would be kind of surprising. --Masamage 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept an apology. Durova^Charge 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to an admin blocking another admin. Always have been opposed to this, always will. It's just not ... done. Take it to RfC, even ArbCom, but don't directly block another fellow admin. Yuser31415 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how a civility block would be anything other than punitive in Guy's case. Guy has had a sharp tongue as long as I've known him, and (1) he isn't particularly more likely to be uncivil in the next x hours than he is in the n hours after that, and (2) I seriously doubt that a block will cause him to change his manner of interaction. IMHO, if people are really concerned about his behavior, engaging on his talk page or an RFC would be the way to go. TheronJ 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can gather consensus at WP:CIV for the exception if you're uncivil and get away with it this policy doesn't apply anymore then I'll strikethrough my warning. The problem editors habitually claim that sysops are a clubby little bunch who violate policy with impunity. Well if none of us get blocked except by ArbCom, then to quote George Orwell All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. If I ever make the same mistake then by all means give me a block warning too, and an actual block if I don't back down. Durova^Charge 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these editors? I've seen people complain that a few admins get away with too much, but I've never heard anyone but User:Cplot style conspiracy theorists claim admins as a whole are a priveleged elite. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot never made any such claims about administrators being a privileged elite. Cplot complained about federal propagandists on the wiki, many of whom are not admins (for example, MONGO thankfully). Why not try to provide a diff showing something Cplot did wrong. That would be an interesting exercise. --SeePlot 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, a WP:SOCK.--Isotope23 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins has no special authority or exemption. The blocking policy applies to them too. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Someone has a bit of a meltdown from dealing with crap, and you threaten to block him? Instead of saying "what's going on, can I help", you threaten him? Instead of providing a support system for the people who end up having to deal with the flood of bullshit that comes their way, we use ultimatums? Sounds great - when someone is buckling under the strain, let's kick them? Durova, I must say, I am deeply disappointed in you. I most certainly oppose your use of ultimatums and threats against one of our hardest-working admins. Guettarda 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... calm down, please. Yuser31415 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

When I saw it in one post I presumed it was a typing error. After I saw it in six more over several different days and conversations I acted. An eighth example has surfaced since then. Durova^Charge 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's an insane thought process, and one that has caused major problems. "I'm dealing with trolls, so I'm above policies!" is the worst thing an admin can possibly say, short of maybe "**** off you ****ing ****er I'm ****ing blocking everyone because I ****ing feel like it". Nothing, at all, should cause you to be placed above policies. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really. If "inability to deal with stress without calling people names and swearing at them" came up in an RFA, most of us would vote "oppose". And I don't think that of Guy; I think he's a lot saner than the wacko you're describing. --Masamage 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Not sure if I'm even allowed to post here but I found ANI to be a reasonable place so far. From the purely linguistic perspective - twit twat and twot are about the same in the context of heated discussion and certainly in common usage. But I learned English in Northumbria if you can call it English:) I do have to apologise for that in daily life quite often. Whether heated discussion or common usage are allowed from anyone on Wikipedia is still uncertain to me. I deal with it by trying to write really flat and boring in discussion. AlanBarnet 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Howay, man, it's nee big deal, like :o) Guy (Help!) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with JzG's comments, but ... haven't we learned recently that blocks aren't a good way to deal with personal attacks made by established users? --Cyde Weys 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, we're you're in a little pickle here. We You get blasted for admin cabaling if we don't, and we get into that situation if we do. I'd also like to say that I am utterly confused as to why "twat" is offensive; that's a nickname my mom uses for my sister, and I don't see any offensiveness. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's anatomical slang. According to its article it can also be a form of twit, but I've never heard it used that way. --Masamage 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... okay, that was more than I really needed to know. Just keep in mind that he may very well be using my definition, not an obscene one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I expected you to just mouse over that link; it didn't occur to me until just now that you might just click the thing. That's really embarrassing and I'm sorry. --Masamage 05:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, I didn't make it clear that I didn't actually click it. I actually caught it in the diff. But I still know what the word means. Don't be embarassd. Have a smiley face. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't include me, because I'm not an admin, meaning I'm somewhat insulated from whatever happens. Yay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda has it right. I realise that it is now all the rage for admins to be the manners police, but while we're going through this phase, it would be nice to remember that blocking people who are not a threat to the project hasn't always been something we expected admins to do, and especially to do casually. I really do appreciate the fact that we're a lot quicker to block trolls and lunatics these days, but we do have a whole dispute resolution process designed for facilitating community input on the behaviour of valued contributors. Jkelly 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more than that. Most of us don't spend much time dealing with troublesome editors. Dealing with them on the scale that Guy (and many others) do is very stressful. If someone has a few meltdowns over a couple months, then maybe it's a sign that we, as a community should be more supportive of them; seeing stuff like that the correct reaction is to say "what's wrong, how can we help" or maybe "take a break from that stuff and concentrate on what's fun". As long as our aim is to retain hardworking volunteers, the correct action is never to approach a good editor like a disruptive troll. If they are feeling the strain, all it does is say to them "your contribution isn't worth shit". It's most likely to exacerbate the problem. The last thing you want to do is come at someone with threats and ultimatums. It will almost certainly fail to produce the desired result. In addition, in general we cut trolls more slack than Durova cut Guy. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. The threats were totally out of line. Guettarda 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He violated WP:CIVIL, and if most of the words I've never heard are similar in definition to his word "twat" (assuming he meant them that way, of course) , he violated it pretty badly. Even then, if I told people to "fuck off", I would most certainly be told to stop in a heartbeat. While admins should not be approached like trolls, they should also not get preferential treatment over everyone else in that respect. And dealing with trolls does NOT justify swearing at people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. You violated AGF - maybe you should be blocked for that?? There are seven links provided above. The first one shows no incivility - he says to someone "you have the brass neck to come here making demands? The short answer is: go away". No one says we have to suffer fools. In the second case, there's nothing there that isn't calling a spade a spade. In the third he says "what the fuck"...oooh, my ears are burning, he used a swear word. Hmm - maybe I need to be threatened with a block for my "WFT" higher up the page. In the fourth case, he says to Fys "and I want you to fuck off". Fys has been behaving like an idiot ever since he played chicken with the arbcomm and got them to blink. He's saying "quit bugging me". Not incivil, and it's totally wrong to take it out of context. In the fifth case, again, he is using "fuck off", but seriously, calling that incivil is nothing but prudery about "the f-word". Did you miss the bit about Wikipedia not being censored for minors? And the sixth example isn't incivil, and it isn't aimed at anyone in particular so how can it be taken as anything serious? As for the word "twat" - that tempest in a teapot is nothing more than a collective failure to assume good faith. Maybe you should just block yourselves for violating AGF and be done with it. Guettarda 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... In case you didn't notice, I'm the first one who brought up that "twat" might mean something else. And you are not in any way explaining why what he did was civil, you're explaining why it was justified. Which is good, except that glosses over what I said, that incivility isn't justified, just by the fact that the point of the incivil comment is correct. You can say things which are right in an incivil way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit summary of the first diff. Anchoress 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guys and gals, we are not policing words (Wikipedia is not censored) we are policing personal attacks having significant venom to hurt people. For the Fuck's sake it is absolutely fuckingly acceptable to use the bloody old-English word fuck to emphasize an idea or an emotion. On the other hand it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to engineer a phrase that would unnecessary hurt people even if the phrase has no colorful words and even if it does not formally violate the principle to comment on contributions not the contributors. I would dare say that in the phrase "useless twat" I am much more concerned with the word useless than with the word twat. Most of the Guy's replies here are examples of using colorful words but not personal attacks. Some might be (although I guess calling a person who delibeartely choose to behave as troll useless should not hurt his emotions. I guess we are better off by examining the situation more careful with Guy present rather than issuing blocks. I trust Durova to discuss it with Guy and to make a right decision. Alex Bakharev 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are different from incivility. For instance, while dismissing all ideas someone comes up with saying "**** those ideas" is not a personal attack, it's certainly incivil. Similarly, I wouldn't quite say anything he did constitutes a personal attack, but it does constitute incivility. Enough to block? I don't know. But personal attacks should be cause for aggressive blocking, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's space between "friendly and polite" and block-worthy incivility. If we couldn't tell someone "leave me alone" (viz., "fuck off") without the thought police breathing down our necks, then I for one would be out of here long ago. Guettarda 06:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me alone" is substantially different from "**** off". Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean swearing at someone is less offensive. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't "substantially different". Guettarda 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV's "Serious examples" includes "Profanity directed at another contributor." --Masamage 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, which would be "fuck you", not "fuck off". Quit Wiki-Lawyering. This is nonsense. Guettarda 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me some folks need to get a fucking life. Wiki isn't a fucking haven for the fucking language Nazi's and this fucking inane proccupation with "so and so huwt my poow widdle feelings" just shows how utterly divorced from fucking reality Wiki is. Personally, I think Wiki could use a nice case of occassional whoop-ass rather than concern over whether a troll's feelings are hurt, and a nice case of reality when ideas are simply baltently fucking stupid. So, that being said, I suppose Durova will want to block me next for actually speaking my mind. Go for it, I really don't care. Wiki at its worst is simply a nattering bunch of officious, pietistic (Wiki as religion) people worried far less about the declining content of the encylopedia and worried far more about creating the equivalent of a Utopian dictatorship. Just remember, Utopia means "nowhere" and Wiki in many cases exists in a netherworld far removed from the real world. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aggression, but I'm not wiki-lawyering. I was offering a piece of information to see whether it had any bearing on the discussion; I think your point about the meaning of "directed at" is a good one, so now I'm satisfied. Go back to insulting people who don't agree with you. --Masamage 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom are you responding? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda. --Masamage 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is the most useless policy on wikipedia. A little incivility doesnt hurt Wikipedia. Guy's comments were just an outburst of anger, and I've seen good users blocked for even less by the thought police. I myself deal with trolls on a daily basis. On my first month on wiki I was booked by the thought police four times in cases all brought by banned users (arbcom ruling "Hkelkar"). Admins that spend all day threatening wikipedians instead of trolls are usually hated by users that deal with trolls and shouldn't have the "holier than thou" attitude when looking at a situation.Bakaman 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

If admins are to have any authority in preventing the increasing coarseness of discourse here, we must begin with ourselves. However, as much as I respect Durova's opinion on nearly everything else, it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors (I have my share for sure). Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago. Thatcher131 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree admins should not be blocked as they have been chosen by the community to be above Wikipedia's policies. This is the universal view. KazakhPol 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes a smartass. As a matter of interest, I started an admin misconduct RFC a while ago over violations of block policy that resulted in the admin voluntarily desysopping himself after a wave of negative responses to his behavior. I'm perfectly willing to take strong action at the appropriate time. This is not yet the time for strong action. Thatcher131 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the result of the long, drawn out, and heated (Template:Emot) debate is that we will wait to see how Guy reacts, and I am 99.999% sure he will make an apology. And then, let's just drop the whole matter, hmmm? (BTW, for the record, this is my 3000th edit.) Yuser31415 06:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen. --Masamage 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "Nobody likes a smartass." If I had a dollar for every time my dad said that to me... anyway, It's a pretty simple thing, really:

1. Does ZisGuy sometimes shoot his mouth off? Well, prety much yes.
2. Does ZisGuy also work his arse off? Definately yes.
3. Does #2 make #1 ok? Anyone wanting to come right out and say that the rules are different for admins/hard workers/FAC writers? No, I thought not.

I've not seen the bordeline tetchyness JZ has demonstrated amount to any serious problem. Yet. Durova's heavy-handedcomments had the correct idea but were woefully handled. Can we all get back to work now, and deal with this iff it turns into a problem?

brenneman 06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in.

Congrats to Durova for being bold, and for coming here for a san-check before acting. And agree with most of the above, blocks should be preventative, not punative. JDZ made a mistake. I'm confident he'll realise that and lower the temperature in future. If not, then maybe he should hand back his bit. But a punative block is the wrong way to express an opinion. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand what you're saying, does that mean that we don't accept bad behavior from these contributors, just that we (perhaps) handle it differently? - brenneman 07:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well put. Where a user's only contributions are negative, a perma-block solves the problem and doesn't cost us anything. Where a user is mostly good with some bad, a perma-block solves the problem, at great cost. A temporary block applied to halt a rampage is a thing of beauty. But a punative block doesn't solve anything, and probably costs us dearly. In this case, I expect him to be sensible. If not, well, there are other options. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also one of the admins who puts myself on the front line in terms of dealing with difficult editors. I wouldn't retain much credibility in asking them to be civil if I were uncivil myself or if I countenanced obscene put-downs from another administrator. The strongest thing I have going for me when I handle a hard case isn't the sysop tools: it's integrity. The central question I asked myself is If I saw exactly these words from an editor of equal value to the project who wasn't a sysop, what would I do? It's a tough call - some of you may disagree with it - and I trust that when Guy logs on he will quickly demonstrate through his inherent good sense that most of our worries are needless. And I have to add that the accusation I've acted punitively is a bit of an AGF foul. I thought people knew me better than that. Durova^Charge 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves. And by the way, Guy is southern English, as I am, and we don't really use "twat" for "vulva" much. It would translate into American as a slightly milder "asshole", I suppose. It wouldn't be very offensive. It has more of a flavour of silliness.

Durova should though be supported here (although no surprises that there is practically a queue forming not to). It's not acceptable for admins to display behaviour that others would be blocked for. They're not above the law. And if you can't deal with twats without telling them to fuck off, maybe giving up dealing with twats would be the best approach. Grace Note 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are punative blocks a useful way to deal with past incivility by anyone, admin or otherwise? I suspect it's like rubbing a puppies nose in 'it', useful if you can do it at the time but harmful if you do it long after the event. The message we want to send is "what you did was not acceptable." A bonus block doesn't help get that message through, IMHO, it distracts. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolitely. Did anyone notice the earlier discussion here and the open case at WP:PAIN? How many times are we going to discuss these issues? Double Jeopardy anyone? If we do it again and again maybe we can make a case for an indefinate block! Sheesh, Guy is clearly feeling it - he was highly active over the holidays and needs some support. Should he swear? No. Will Blocking him after he has left when the diffs have already been raised discussed and dismissed help? Hell no. Does he need some more support from his colleagues? Hell Yes. --Spartaz 07:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the bit of bad faith mud slung at me about punitive blocking still sticks after I already disavowed it? In the unlikely event that Guy logs on and claims he's perfectly right about telling people to fuck off and intends to continue...well then wouldn't it fall within the bounds of reason to impose a block preventatively before he actually does so again? Durova^Charge 07:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what in my edit was slinging mud? Do you really think that we need to discuss this three times? Would it be fair for a start? There are plenty of dispute resolution options available if Guy doesn't heed the request to cool the language down. But a block hours after the event when he isn't even logged in? Will that really help? I doubt it and I don't think that it would calm the situation down. Quite the opposite - we would have carnage if we went down that route without trying our very best to discuss the situation. You know how it works - wheelwarring, RFCs, RFArs everywhere. *Shudder* Spartaz 07:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The diffs date as far back as December 1 and happened mostly within the last week or so. Most of them either use the word fuck or call some specific editor an idiot. If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence. I have not done so in this instance, nor is it appropriate to introduce wheel warring to this very hypothetical discussion. Your participation in this thread and at my user page has demonstrated very persistent bad faith against me and mischaracterized my actions to the extent that yes I do think it amounts to mudslinging. WP:AGF does not mean that my motives and methods are bad until proven legitimate. I made a tough call tonight regarding a sysop I admire and like, couched it in the most respectful terms I could muster, and disclosed the situation here immediately. Durova^Charge 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted on your talk page as far as I can remember and its not on my watchlist. Since you are throwing TLAs at me can I ask you where you have AGF with me? Making unfounded allegations of persistant bad faith against you by an editor is far more of a personal attack than what you charactarise as my mudslinging. Please review your post and check you have the right editor. You are completely overeacting to a comment that I don't think is wholly out of line with a significant pov posted in this thread. Blocking anyone without discussing the problem with them is inappropriate in pretty much every circumstance. If you asked Guy to tone it down and he told you fuck off then fair enough but not this so far. I think you are taking this far too personally. Its allowed to disagree - there is no need to get all offended. --Spartaz 08:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I posted that shortly before I went to bed and must have been more tired than I realized by that point. Durova^Charge 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough! This is completely out of line. Not only do we have a huge section of people now trying to get even with Guy but he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself. Also, before all this biting at Guy began did you for one second consider the rampant bad faith of bringing this issue forward and the blatant disruption that this has caused by now? Those comments that Guy reacted to were completely out of line and he did the right thing. Showing up at WP:PAIN and launching a personal attack of the magnitude that this editor did should be more than enough reason for a good long block at least. End of story, nothing more to see here people. MartinDK 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My God... JzG remarked that someone may be "dismissed as a crank" and it spawned a giant thread started by a mildly offensive body part of a user that turned into a hunt through Guy's contributions for any other past transgressions. Amazing. Somebody has to deal with our twats. Wouldn't a message on JzG's talkpage to tone it down a little have sufficed? I find him quite reasonable. Grandmasterka 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I am appaled at the way things seem to be working here lately. As soon as a grup of disgruntled editors smell blood they hurl accusations and threats at an admin that works his fucking ass off around here. WP:JERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry everyone, I know that learning to deal with people you consider to be idiots is not optional but somewhere between the nth deletion of tenorically and fielding my fourth angry email from a spammer DEMANDING that he be allowed to continue adding links and articles about his company WHICH IS NOT SPAMMING AT ALL, I think I went over my personal threshold for the number of people-I-consider-to-be-idiots that I can handle simultaneously. My own fault for visiting the firehose of crap. Mind you, I'm not sure I can or should bowdlerise things - if someone does something as stupid as slapping a warning on an admin's talk page not do disrupt Wikipedia by disrupting their disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point to prove a point, I am almost certainly going to continue to say what I think. As anybody who knows me personally will readily tell you, that's my standard response to crass idiocy, even from my friends. Perhaps I should start ROT13ing things, like they do on Ye Shedde (uk.rec.sheds). I'm not going to address the diffs posted above, because I suspect that anybody who cares is not going to accept my version anyway. What was it that Cryptic said? Deals badly with trolls. Plus c,a change, I guess.

All of which brings me back to a comment I made some days ago: we need, I think, a place where we can get peer support without the intervention of people trying to escalate or resurrect thier own disputes. Barberio, for example, had absolutely no call to stick his oar in to the situation with SlamDiego, all that did was to make a tense situation worse and distract people away from helping with that problem (where I could have used a bit of help, and fortunately Hipocrite came along to provide it) and into yet more low-grade Wikidrama. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point about past disputes. What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin (not you in this case) several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?

There will always be a tension between letting sleeping dogs lie (not bringing up past disputes) and wanting to express concerns about a long-term pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of changing. What do you think is the best thing to do in cases like this? Carcharoth 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose RFC would be the correct procedure. ANI threads such as this are far too easily abused by people with an axe to grind, who simply repeat earlier disputes with the person in question even if they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. >Radiant< 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and well said. I love these kind of summaries which use no citations as they are cristal clear. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up (R)} 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reaction to SlamDiego, as I had an encounter with him in which I was sorely tempted to block him. I think it is ridiculous that all this fuss is being made about how you handled a troll combative and disruptive editor. -- Donald Albury 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, in fact, be perfectly happy to accept an apology for bad behaviour and a promise not to do it again. I have no vendetta against JzG, and he does do fine work, but he needs to know when to back off and go have a cup of tea. If you're worked up into a state where you're using foul language and ranting, you need to put down the keyboard. Unfortunately, comments to such were ignored, and my only recourse left was to file it on WP:PAIN and bring it to general attention.

I'm upset that he (And some others) seems to have decided I'm his enemy, I'm not. I was trying to get him to stop attacking people and escalating issues that could be resolved calmly. I'm sure he can so, and just needs to find that admin zen again.

I'm sure that it's all been impressed on JzG now, and if we can settle this with a simple agreement not to use foul language against editors, it's something we can all drop and walk away from. I mean JzG no harm, and don't want any putative actions taken on him, I just want us to be able to get on with editing the wiki in a calm civil way. --Barberio 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 nails it. This is MONGO all over again. The clear message is: take the crap, deal with the trolls and cranks, and if you ever, ever, speak out bluntly or profanely at the shit being shoveled, someone will scream "foul" and either block you or threaten to do so as a punitive measure - or in the case of MONGO, desysop you as a reward for having done so much, so long for Wikipedia that you are at the breaking point. Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. Incredibly hard working admins who fight these idiots (Yes, I said idiots, I stand by that) who (the admins, not the idiots) occasionally slip under the strain should have a weighted response. If they have a ratio of 2,000 edits and actions which are civil and helpful to the encyclopedia, and 1 or 2 which are uncivil, to people who are of no or extremely little value to the encyclopedia, then reacting to that as though it were some kind of horror movie scene is Undue Weight. Hear me clearly: between the Giano situation, which is a case of one of the best writers here being driven to what appears to be a defensive running battle, by ADMINS no less - and the MONGO and now JzG situations, where admins have been driven to minor incivility by the sheer volume of crap they have to fight, and the response of a large portion of the community to respond with torches and stakes to the people who are driven to that point not the people who drove them there, I am beginning to doubt the basic common sense of some of the general Wikipedia population. What are you people thinking? Oh My God, someone said a BAD WORD to a vandal, troll, or POV pusher. Well, fuck, I guess we'll all have to go to Time Out and not get cookies. Apparently it is more important to Be Civil at all times than to work your ass off completely uncompensated and have the random moment where it gets to you. Focus, anyone? Perspective? I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challanging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resouce since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy. ATren 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? Then either you need to read again, or I was unclear. Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred. Consistant crap will get one indef blocked, but occiasional crap does not. This is not a "special rule" this is applying the rules as they are currently written. What is so hard to understand about that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...and if that editor continues to act incivilly, then what? ATren 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia. >Radiant< 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is my point exactly: this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass. Note: I am not arguing for or against the practice here, only that the practice is in conflict with the stated policy. If the consensus is that there are exceptions to these policies, then those exceptions should be documented somewhere. ATren 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I actually find very little reference to blocking on either page. NPA refers to blocking for legal/death threats, and "in extreme cases" it is "controversial" for users to be blocked for disruption. CIV lists a few suggestions to prevent incivility, several of which are widely impractical and several of which involve blocking (now reworded). I'm not sure where the idea comes from that incivility/personal attacks must in all or most cases be dealt with by blocking, because neither page says so. >Radiant< 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Anyway, it's covered by ignore all rules. If the rules hamper the work of building the encyclopaedia (for example by preventing Giano from contributing good content), then we can safely ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"? If you've ever worked retail then you've stood at a similar "firehose of crap" and probably not told anyone to "fuck off" (which would get you fired). In my view any normal person is capable of this sort of self-restraint. And it would be nice to see everyone use it. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point here to all the people getting upset about "idiots" and "trolls". Why let "idiots" and "trolls" upset you so much? They are, as you say, idiots and trolls. Trolls will be pleased that you are getting upset, and idiots will, well, not really care or understand. Pity the idiots and trolls and dispassionately and calmly block them, rather than ranting and raving at them. POV pushers are another matter, and, in my opinion, a greater threat to Wikipedia, but they are being serious, so treat them seriously and civilly and defend balanced, well-written articles. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is disruption and is just as detrimental to writing an encyclopedia as POV pushers are. Everyone should remain civil as much as possible but we are only human, and if someone is being trolled to death, Wikipedia then becomes just a battleground for them. I am not aware of all JzG has been dealing with, but no doubt, it is not very difficult to understand how disruptive editors can make almost anyone become a bit off center in their remarks. If one doesn't experience it firsthand, they don't really know how crappy this place can be, but the only way to defeat it without laying down the law and sometimes being rude, is to walk away...and that is what the trolls want. I don't condone incivility, but in examining it should be noted that, Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. Now, again, what JzG needs is polite reminders to remain civil...and he also needs opur support if he is indeed dealing with a constant barrage of harassment...or even if he is simply dealing with a little harassment.--MONGO 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good in theory, difficult in practice. People screaming at you, taunting, mocking...the reason people do it is because it works. Guettarda 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say something here (speaking in general and not in direct response to this thread), I don't see what place swearing at someone has in a serious effort to write and maintain an encyclopedia. Swearing at someone (even someone whose sole purpose is to troll) just enflames the person and gives at least some onlookers the impression that that's an acceptable way to interact with people. It's unproductive all the way around. Blockable? No, but admins have all the tools they need to deal with disruptive editors, how is being aggressively hostile to a disruptive editor going to make them less disruptive? And in the meantime, borderline editors and newcomers will see that there's a place for hostile incivility here, which is a message I don't think we want to send. Rx StrangeLove 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I said it as a reviewer on PAIN, and I'll say it here: JzG's conduct was unacceptable for a sysop, and he needs to be reminded to maintain the decorum expected of the Wikipedia administration. If he cannot conduct himself appropriately, he is negatively affecting the environment here on Wikipedia, and should surrender his status. If he can, well then all's well that ends well. Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'll say it plainly - people who are discussing blocking, or desysoping JzG for calling a disruptive and worthless contributor a twat are busybodies who should review Matthew 7:5. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

How about being part of the problem, you try being part of the solution? Incivility, especially towards those trying to resolve a situation, is divisive and unnecessary. Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that was where we came in. Do you honestly think I react like that when not provoked? It takes a fair bit of effort to get me angry, but one or two individuals seem to have made it a project to see how rude and aggressive they can be before I bite back. As games go it's not a particularly constructive one. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try to decrease the "temperature" of a situation - not increase it. Sysops should be examples of expected conduct on Wikipedia, and as such, breaches of policy by a sysop are more concerning than those of a normal editor. As such, I feel that you should be reminded to keep such decorum. Do I think you should be desysopped or blocked, or, oh I don't know, tarred and feathered? No. You made a mistake when provoked, all I'm asking is you learn from it :) Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to respond to Chihuahua. If an editor, any editor, is taking shit from another, there are means to deal with it. There is always a cavalry. You don't have to feel you are fighting a lone battle against a "twat". Someone else can come along and knock some sense into them, or help you conclude that said "twat" and sense can never be on speaking terms. No one gets "driven" to it. You don't have to fight a crusade against people who don't get it. You have the machinery to deal with it.

And yes, sorry, if there are punitive blocks for ordinary users who feel put upon by admins and snap, there are punitive blocks for admins who feel put upon by ordinary users and snap. It's better to have the rule of law than the law of the jungle. It's better in my view not to block punitively unless it is a matter of giving someone a bit of thinking space to correct how they see things though. If Guy thinks that the pressure is so much that he needs to abuse other people, maybe a day off to think about it wouldn't hurt. Maybe Guy needs some time away from areas in which he feels pressured. A bit of low-grade typochasing might help him get back on an even keel (I almost wrote "evil kin", which is a worry). He doesn't need blocking to give himself a bit of chilling-out time though. He just needs to figure out that he's let things get on top of him a bit, which I think he's probably well aware of.

And I think Peter also has it right. It doesn't actually resolve the problem with "twats" if you yell at them to fuck off! A bit of fuckoffery could probably be more readily forgiven if it didn't seem to be the first line of defence against editors who upset you but yes, I think we do need stakes and torches for those who aren't willing to try other methods of managing conflicts than simply escalating them. Grace Note 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First there was "Pity the idiots and trolls", now there's the Spanish Inquisition with its stakes and torches. Bah. Like Guy, I have a very limited capacity for suffering fools, and like KC I believe in accuracy. A troll is a troll, an idiot is an idiot, a POV pusher is a POV pusher. Period. In fact this motley collection of trolls, idiots and POV pushers that so many are defending in the guise of "civility" are hurting Wikipedia's reputation. Several of my wife's friends have contacted me asking if there wasn't something that could be done about the banal and inane objections raised by the trolls, idiots and POV pushers, as reading their comments on the discussion pages has turned them against using Wikipedia as a reliable source. None of them, however, had any gripes about trolls, idiots and POV pushers being treated in an uncivil manner, in fact they noted that these clowns are tolerated far more than they should be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And that kind of attitude just gives them an excuse to act the way they do. Just H 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy Chapman needs to get gone from Wikipedia. He has a distinct anti-Catholic animus, inserts his opinions into matters he shouldn't as ad admin (matters about which he knows nothing in the first place), and has trashed the Fish Eaters website, getting it blacklisted for no good reason, and treating its owner like crap in the process. He is rude, illogical, arrogant, unreasonably punitive, hypocritical, unforgiving, and mean. He makes editing Wiki pages a little bit like touring Hell. 75.46.79.200 03:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a Fish Eaters troll. Very nice. Was wondering when they were going to pop up. -bbatsell ?? 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm... and you think this because of what Chapman says, right? Right. Someone defending her website against accusations of "spamming" isn't "trolling." 75.46.69.90 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Atren

So, as I read this thread, it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances? Because the policy pages seem very clear that it is not permitted under any circumstances, and the reality seems to be not so clear cut. All I'm saying is when an editor visits WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and sees these idealistic, uncompromising statements about personal attacks and civility, they get the impression that these are inviolable rules that can never be broken, when it's clear that WP:IAR applies to civility. I think we should qualify those policies to soften the stance somewhat (especially WP:NPA which is especially uncompromising) to reflect the reality not promote the false ideal. ATren 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have told ATren in no uncertain terms that he was to stop needling JzG over this issue. As you may or may not know, ATren is in a protracted dispute with JzG over the article on Personal Rapid Transit, and is transparently using this time of high Wikistress for JzG to attempt to make his experience here worse. I told ATren in no uncertain terms to stop this reprehensible behavior twice -> [8], and [9]. As demonstrated directly above, he has decided to ignore my strongly worded advice. I suggest an adminstrator take appropriate corrective action to protect one of our most valuable editors and adminstrators in his time of need from ATren's desire to hurt people he has had disputes with. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to hurt anybody. I simply presented evidence on a user with which I have a contentious history. Durova clearly stated that she thought this was an isolated incident, and I replied that it was not, with diffs. Is that stalking?

And now I've made comments that the policy is at odds with consensus here. Policy is unswerving in condemning incivility, but consensus is obviously not so clear. It's clear that a certain amount of incivility is permitted for valuble contributors. So the policy is at odds with practice, and that should be resolved. That's it.

Frankly, I would find it quite ironic if I were blocked for simply reporting incivility here. I'm sure if I were involved in a conflict with another editor, JzG would not hesitate to chime in with his views. Why am I called a stalker for simply presenting evidence? I should point out that I'm not the first to question JzG's incivility, and in fact I didn't even start any of the recent threads. Why am I being singled out? ATren 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

May I address that? In general, the more positive an editor's contribution history is the less intervention is necessary to get them to self-correct. I don't construe that as a license to be rude. Durova^Charge 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility isn't permissable. But it is forgivable. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What does JzG know of forgiveness? Nothing. 75.46.69.90

More than you can possibly imagine. I managed to forgive User:ParalelUni, bit that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm going to let him back in to the project. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community. By the same token, Durova is a valued, hard-working, and scrupulously fair editor who's trying to do what s/he thinks is right, by bringing the issue here; going after Durova is also uncalled for. Let's give Guy a chance to cool off; based on his history here, he's earned it, and will learn from this incident. Just my 2-c-. MastCell 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm cool enough now, although I nearly went ballistic after reading Barbiero's sanctimonious bullshit about me having decided he's my enemy - I don't think I'm the one following someone around and stirring up trouble in his interactions with others. He's attacked Nick, Dmcdevit, me and now Radiant - if that carries on he's set to attack one admin too many, and we know where that will end up. I updated the disclaimer on my Talk page anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm not attacking you, Nick, Dmcdevit or Radiant. I'm asking for some civil behaviour and responsibility, and I hope we can try to get along. I'm trying not to act in a hostile way to you, but making accusations of stalking and using phrases like "sanctimonious bull" make it hard to.

It should not be such a big thing for a well intentioned established editor to ask an admin to moderate their language, or check potentially controversial actions with others before proceeding. Constant review by others is the way the wiki works, this includes admin actions and behaviours. Frankly, I'm confused by some of the admin who are professing otherwise. --Barberio 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reads to me like JzG has decided to ignore you and you're desperate for acceptance. I reccomended you walk away before - I triple reccomend that now. Trust me, you are earning nothing but poop. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I made a tough decision. Guy doesn't hold it against me[10] so I'll respond to the people who do. Quite a few of the negative comments appear to reflect unfamiliarity with my contributions. My respect for longstanding contributors is demonstrated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova and ArbCom has deferred its case to User:Durova/Mediation. Yet I ask the people who wax about Guy's value at this project to consider this[11] and this[12] and this[13] and this.[14] Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular. Down in the trenches I'm also struggling to retain another good editor.[15][16] His frustration might not have reached the breaking point if other admins had responded to either of the two reports that got filed here about a very persistent vandal.[17][18]

I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk. Over at another arbitration case I apologized and struck through one very mild statement to a troublesome editor I had presented evidence against. [19] Look at how much goodwill that simple action purchased: the same editor is branching out from a single purpose account to become more of a productive Wikipedian and I've offered to give the Barnstar of Resilience when one of her pages gets onto Template:Did you know.[20] I get hounded too (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors) and some editors try to exploit my goodwill.[21][22] Yet I don't deliver a kick in the pants when I show someone the door. That kind of action validates the folks at Wikipedia Review. I shouldn't have to state this matter a third time, but my block warning to Guy was not punitive: it would have prevented him from dropping more f-bombs in the unlikely event he thought that was a-okay. I handled the situation exactly the same way I would have handled habitual profanity from an unsysopped editor of equal merit. Maybe that was wrong, but so many of the criticisms have misrepresented the basic facts of my actions that I find it hard to weigh the resulting analysis. I hope the administrators who want to ease the burden on folks like Guy and MONGO (and me!) will help out with more tough cases and investigations - not just pile onto stuff that's already high profile but look around the way I do for messes where no other mop is anywhere in sight. Durova^Charge 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Durova was right to speak up about incivility here. All the people 'jumping to the defense of JzG' have it exactly backwards... Durova was the one helping JzG. The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens... kinda like Durova was doing. --CBD 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at this and tell me then who was out of line! Not only had this editor posted this "crank" on WP:PAIN, he had posted the exact same paragraph on WP:RFC/USER twice and been reverted. He knew he was out of line and Guy was being overly nice by not beating him with the blockhammer. MartinDK 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Yrgh got upset about TAnthony calling him an idiot, he acted out, he got blocked and insulted again by JzG. Who was "out of line"? All of the above. Obviously. It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem. --CBD 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I've been ignoring this thread because as far as I'm concerned the whole thing was over as soon as it began, having been solved by the simple expedient of going to bed, but the above is factually wrong. I did not block Yrgh. Quite the opposite, I went and invited him to repost his complaint in terms that would allow it to be taken seriously. I also spent some time investigating the complaint despite its tone. And then it turned out he was wasting everyone's time, at which point he was indef-blocked by Cyde, who posted the block for review. At that point I endorsed blocking, referring to the former (now indef-blocked) user as a twat, based on the evidence presented by Cyde. Twat is a not a strong insult in England. Not that I'm especially proud of using invective, but I wasted quite a bit of time trying to follow up what looked as if it might have been a substantive complaint, only to find that it was a case of the very ancient iron pot calling the shiny new stainless steel kettle black. It was a very trivial incident, but amply demonstrated, to my mind, the inherent problems with the PAIN noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, CBD. I'll be clear here. Guy was out-of-line; and I don't think he'd do it again. He is one of the most hard-working administrators on Wikipedia and exercises good judgment most of the times. But do you realise there are users who assume bad faith with everyone and are regularly uncivil and disruptive themselves; Guy was provoked here, and he did not react nicely. Do you realise the user who posted the civility warning on JzG's talk was being uncivil and disruptive himself? Strings and threads of warnings on his talk page. The same user posts a {{npa}} template on Guy's talk; and when Guy reverts him he takes it to WP:PAIN, citing the words "fuck off" again and again and again, despite being uncivil, assuming bad faith – disregarding comments with regard to policies and guidelines with an holier than thou approach. That is "sanctimonious bullshit". I know where you are coming from, and you have the best intentions for Guy and Wikipedia as a whole, however a block warning by another administrator is frankly, out-of-line in itself. Would it help the situation get better? Definitely not. So, instead of giving more leverage to the arguments of such ... uh... over-assertive users, and rapping the knuckles of established administrators, we can all get back to editing articles. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way to 'avoid giving more leverage' is to not violate the behaviour standards in the first place and not 'turn a blind eye' when it happens. If 'knuckles get rapped' in a fair and consistent manner they have nothing to complain about. If people are attacked for daring to suggest that the civility policies apply to everyone... THAT 'gives them leverage'. --CBD 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the approach covered by "I happen to believe in Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity and I walk the walk." tempered by an eye for context. I wish the first question that went through an administrator's mind before intervention would be: what effect does this infraction have on the encyclopedia? The next questions could be: is there a hurry? and: will this cause a debate-fest, with the inevitable escalation that produces? And I'd like to suggest some slack be cut for administrators letting their guard down in non-article space like this page. The atmosphere gets a bit newsgroupy, so I'm saddened to see what is said offhandedly by good, hard-working users being policed just because they happen to say it in a room full of police, or to see one user's opportunistic stirrring being given the time of day: let complaints go through procedure, giving everyone time to think.

Despite dissimilarities with the Giano situation, I do notice one similarity. In both cases, a relatively harmless discussion on this page got out of control when diffs were suddenly bandied about and chased up. It seems to me that nothing administrators say here should lead to disciplinary procedures in the absence of a formal complaint (say to diff conjurors something like: "if you are bothered, make a formal complaint with a new heading, preferably after giving it a day or two's thought"). From what I can see, this started with one chap saying something a bit sharp, followed by someone telling him to tone it down: that should have been the end of it. In my opinion, another user pulled the triangle trap which I've seen on Supernanny, and I wish one of our best and most diligent administrators hadn't walked into it in all good faith. I'd also like to see administrators asking themselves whether speed is required for any particular block: in this case the various diffs, which were not fresh, could have been mulled over for a day or two (during which it would have been found that a certain word was relatively innocuous), because the only urgent reason to block someone, in my opinion, is to stop them damaging Wikipedia: in this case, that didn't apply.qp10qp 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what CBD is saying here. My philosophy is summed up at User:Carcharoth/Philosophy. This can be a hard thing to stick to, but no-one said this was going to be easy. In the long-term, breeding incivility is a very bad thing. I see too much of people seeing themselves as aggressive defenders of the project, and being attackers of trolls, and being firemen (and women) dealing with huge amounts of crap. I don't dispute that there are huge amounts of crap being added, but bringing yourself down to that level doesn't actually help. Constantly try to rise above it. Help others involved in this. If they are getting dragged down to the breaking point, point this out to them. Be a role model for others. Carcharoth 19:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I see how Wikipedia got to be a Top 10 website. It's all you knuckleheads resorting to vulgar epithets to dismiss those with conflicting views, then the victims signing in sixteen times an hour to cry and whine about it. Great encyclopedia, guys. --JossBuckle Swami 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

i can see why Guy would be angry, if the person wasted his time. However is an indef block warranted? Geo. 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really get the whole 'wasted time' bit. Yrgh complained that TAnthony had made personal attacks on him. TAnthony HAD made personal attacks on him. I haven't reviewed it in detail, but I saw that in just a cursory review. If Guy didn't see that and blew it off that's probably what led to Yrgh's complete meltdown... which sadly WAS extreme and worthy of a serious block. As he hasn't made any effort at communication since (that I know of) it is difficult to see if there would be any way to get him to calm down. -CBD 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy calling someone a twat was definately not ok. He apologized for that too. What should have happened at that point was that someone should have said to Guy "Look, you are getting too worked up now. Take a break, Wikipedia won't collapse if you are not here. Go watch some TV or something." Instead what happened was that everyone who felt a need to get even with Guy came running and started to fuel the fire hoping that they could get Guy blocked because he finally got too stressed and made a mistake. This is what upsets me greatly because Guy wasn't on at the time so the only people left to defend him were his friends who, granted, were equally eager to get even with those who fueled the fire to begin with. At that point all hell broke loose and I don't think any of us are proud of that. Hopefully what we have learned from this is that these situations are much better resolved by giving the stressed out editor (in this case Guy) a friendly "warning" telling him that he needs to take a break for a few hours or so and let others deal with spammers and the firehose of crap. MartinDK 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

May I humbly point out a remarkable coincidence about this episode, considering that it's JzG who's involved. The case, where a casual remark which is almost a jovial term of endearment in the UK comes across as a deadly and unforgivable insult in another time zone, parallels the G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs case. From what I've read all have been acting with the best of intentions, and while Guy will no doubt have washed his mouth out with soap, it's worth remembering that Zaphod's ship is The Heart of Gold. And in all cases, not just with admins, I'd hope that previous good behaviour is always taken into account when handing down sentences. I rest my case, m'lud.... dave souza, talk 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all this, I think brenneman said it the best. To paraphrase him, we don't accept bad behaviour from established contributors, we just handle it differently. In my view, having an admin flag should be totally irrelevant. Setting up an "admins don't block admins" guideline will just give ammunition to those who suggest admins are too tightly knit. Also, WP:IAR shouldn't be used as an excuse to sidestep this question. Obviously, when dealing with other admins, an admin will take a different approach than when dealing with a known vandal. But at the end of the day, either an admin has the authority to block another admin or they don't - and this needs to be in writing somewhere.

Of course, someone who is an admin is much more likely to be contributing to the community than a random user, and those contributions should be taken into account. In this case, JzG is a clearly established contributor, who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia (including use of his admin tools). So he earns a warning and a "please apologize", when a new user would have been blocked for posting the exact same things he did. But it's because of his contribution history, not just because he's an admin. It's a subtle difference, but I feel it's important to make the distinction.

On the swearing issue - Wikipedia isn't censored. However, that doesn't give people a licence to swear whenever they want. When writing an article about a CEO who was fired for having an affair with a secretary, there's no need to use a phrase like, "He got sacked for grabbing his hot-to-trot secretary and fucking her brains out". Swearing can be used, but when appropriate - both in main-space, and in talk-space. Can swearing be used in a conversation to make a point? Fuck, yeah! But it loses its point-making impact if every other post is an f-bomb. I'm particularly disturbed by the suggestion that "Fuck you" is a personal attack, but "Fuck off" and "Leave me alone" are both perfectly fine, and identical to each other. "Fuck off" can mean lots of different things when saying it to someone's face - but things are different on the net.

For the record, in Australia, twat's just a minor insult, like "silly twat". But we make sure to mention that to American visitors, just like we mention terms like "fanny". Come on, how can you not know what a fanny pack is? You silly - uh oh, I almost said twats. :-p Quack 688 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard of the American woman who told her New Zealander host family that she liked rooting for her home football team. One young man's reaction was, "What, the whole team?" -- Donald Albury 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maaaate - she sounds fully sick! Go, son! Better not have a Barry Crocker!

Translation: My friend, she sounds like a great person. I suggest you make a move towards her. I hope you don't make any blunders in your approach.

(P.S. Cultural misunderstandings are great fun.) Quack 688 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, point above: admins don't block admins. Yes they do, and should, but we should be as reluctant to block admins as we should be any other long-standing contributor. More to the point, though, blocks are preventive not punitive - and there was nothing to prevent, since I logged off at 00:35 local time and the above comment by Durova was at 03:41 local time - I was already in bed asleep by then. Had I still been in a foul temper when I came back the following morning, a block would have been quite in order, but I wasn't (see my above post the following morning). Guy (Help!) 11:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update - Some COI issues and reluctance of some editors to get along (and some positive points)

Hi all. Recent notifications concerning the NLP article have covered promotional obscuring of views (suppression of information [23]) and users of a known COI editing the article To be found under "Comaze" [24] Under "NLP article specific examples of promotional obscuring of facts and relevant views" [25]. An admin has already civilly explained the situation to those above editors [26][27]. Also Cleanup taskforce has asked for a serious cleanup of the article - including reducing redundancy and making the debate more concise and contained [28]. Efforts to balance views emphasizing the concept [29] seem to be getting ignored -

"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview."

Some editors have been persistently trying to suppress core information from the opening and these tend to be the ones reluctant to get along with those of a different view [30] [31],[32] [33] [34] [35], [36] [37]

[38],[39],[40]

There is still a misuse of argumentative words to avoid. There is no need at all for the argumentative or debate word "however" in the line yet they insist. [41] [42]. Their behaviour seems to me to be highly unconstructive considering the assessment of the CleanupTaskforce.

Editors have been ignoring efforts to make the article more concise (without obscuring views), by physically distancing the discussion on the article [43]- and by removing it completely from discussion [44].

There is some evidence of editors with known COI making odd edits on other articles [45].

On the positive side - there are fewer edits per day (usually less than 40). A lot of the problem was caused by the plus 50 eds per day which has led to an oversized article. The CleanupTaskforce has given helpful instructions to make the article more concise and to clarify what NLP is about. I don't see any particular problem long term and I'm fairly sure editors will come round to the idea that editors of different views are supposed to try to get along. Once they properly discuss the suppression of information policy I'm sure a win-win can be achieved. Trolling - sockuppetry - and meatpuppetry don't seem to me to be an issue. I believe the main point is to encourage editors of various views to work together collaboratively and civilly in the long term. AlanBarnet 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All other editors on the NLP page are in agreement [46] [47] [48] [49] that AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either a sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown or he is equally bad. At least two more independent users on his talk page have identified him as a sockpuppet also. However, even in his own right, this new user has exhausted all patience with his disinformation, distortion, and lies (much of which continues above). This is his third WP:AN/I notice about content disagreement. A block has been requested before. 58.178.142.37 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.142.37. The editors you mention all seem to be keen on obscuring key views or at the very least they are all reluctant to make clear concise statements of each view. I've provided edits and discussion recently [50] and on multiple prior occasions and encouraged discussion concerning getting along and making sure that each view is concisely summarized to the best of each view. Rather than discussing or adjusting my edits - others have tried to either marginalize the discussion or in your case - delete my edits altogether without discussion on a regular basis - call me a troll with venom - and restore argumentative debate into the article. I believe that most would see your actions as unreasonable. I havn't tried to cut away - reduce- or obscure any of the sourced NLP views. You and others seem to have obscured the views of science either by removing them from the lead - reduce them so they become obscure - add undue argument - or cover them with nonrelevant information. All the article needs is to present the subject of NLP with each view summarized so that it becomes clear to the reader. This can all be done without excess size and it can be done civilly. This is not a content disagreement. Its about COI - obscuring key views - getting along- and a simple enough NPOV solution. AlanBarnet 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your diffs above clearly show several other editors consistently reverting you. Can't you see that only incriminates yourself as the editor that pushed an edit-war? 58.179.166.57 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• It has been asserted by others that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown. I would not like to call that, since at least some of the motivation for the assertion seems to be that he is pushing the scientific mainstream view of NLP in that article. Previously the article was under mediation; maybe it needs to be again. My understanding is that HeadleyDown was less calm and less polite than AlanBarnett. I have no personal knowledge of HeadleyDown, though. There is abundant evidence of conflict of interest in the pro-NLP camp, and they definitely dominate editing of that article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your view that editors are partly motivated out of their POV is unfounded and must necessarily be based on not having read the NLP talk page. Both User:Doc_pato and User:Fainites have been very extremely verbal in promoting the mainstream scientific view and nonetheless they both want AlanBarnet blocked [51] [52]. And quite frankly Guy, you are in personal conflict posting here as an admin; having previously labelled NLP pejoratively as a cultic [53] [54], and with AlanBarnet saying he communicates with you privately [55] [56]. There is no consistent evidence that there is either a pro-NLP or anti-NLP camp. In fact, the NLP talk page clearly shows there is much healthy debate, except on one issue where all agree: User:AlanBarnet is an abusive sockpuppet of HeadleyDown. Users have had two months to determine this. AlanBarnet is just as antagonistic and disruptive as HeadleyDown [57] [58] [59] [60] and more and he has maliciously posted a users' personal information several times [61] [62] [63]. Woohookitty? Voice-of-all? Can we please have an admin that is qualified to recognise this sockpuppet? 58.179.166.57 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am convinced that AlanBarnett is HeadleyDown not because of the views he/she pushes), but from his/her well-documented pattern of behaviour (btw, personally I would tend to be more on the anti-NLP side). Jbhood 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi user 58.179.166.57. I am cooperatively posting notices on ANI to solve a problem. I never said I communicated with Guy privately - only that I am keen on cooperating with admin. There have been over 80 edits on the NLP article per day at times and with no sufficient discussion. There are editors on the article who seem to have a COI and you seem to be encouraging them to edit. I've reiterated admin suggestions and assessments and you call it harassment. You seem to be dismissing key NPOV points about keeping the article summarized and you've been regularly marginalizing key science views as can be seen in the links above. When I make reasonable suggestions towards making sure all relevant views are presented as best as the proponent of each view can - you delete the suggestion. When helpful editors restore the suggestion you delete again [64]. You and others seem to be refusing to balance views and refusing to make succinct concise statements about each view. I am talking about getting along. If you would like to start civilly discussing the Suppression of Information policy on the NLP talkpage I'm sure admin would be happy that editors of different views are trying to get along. AlanBarnet 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Utter baloney! AlanBarnet, if you are so wonderful how do you explain six separate editors [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] thinking you are a manipulative sockpuppet and wanting you blocked? Coincidence? All editors are reverting you blindly now, quite obviously sick of your falsified article citations and talk page sugercoated baloney. Your own talk page confirms what I am saying. Clearly you should be blocked. 58.179.166.57 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi 58.179.166.57. Editors who have not shown a reluctance to presenting all views clearly seem to be reverting you [71] (Editor MER-C at least). And rather than blind reversion - it seems to be a reversion based upon the need for collaborative and civil discussion. AlanBarnet 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again; Just to help get the ball rolling towards collaborative editing and discussion - I'd like to present this [72] for discussion on the NLP talkpage. Rather than just delete such a large piece of unsourced argumentative commentary - it seems more constructive to see if there is anything of any value in it by discussing with other editors. Thanks AlanBarnet 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. You are being naive. Just because AlanBarnet says he's presenting mainstream scientific views and preventing them being obscured by others doesn't make it true. AlanBarnet has done virtually none of the work in sourcing, verifying and citing the mainstream scientific views which now have a full clear section. I know because I did alot of it myself in collaboration with other editors, including Comaze, but almost never AlanBarnet. He has no real interest in ascertaining genuine views from genuine sources, whether they're pro or anti NLP. Neither is he remotely interested in helping shorten, improve or clarify anything else. Mostly what AlanBarnet does is revert to older inaccurate versions without bothering to clear up the mess created with references, citations etc, put inaccurate or highly selective quotes in the introduction (over and over again), put in grossly POV statements, unverified and unsourced and refuse to provide verified sources on request, and then clutter up the talk page insultingly accusing everybody else of doing these things.[73] (note inadequate edit summary)[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] If you believe any of that nonsense about wanting to collaborate or work constructively with others then you are the only one who does. Those of us who have had the pleasure of trying to work with him (and I tried very hard) know this protestation for what it is worth. Less than zilch. I also asked you some time ago that if you had any decent sources to back up your claim that it is a 'fact' NLP is a cult, to let us have them, because nearly all of the ones from the HeadleyDown/AlanBarnet camp, when somebody troubles to actually read the blasted things, don't support this. The only sources left are Protopriest Novopashin and you. In the circumstances I would support the request for somebody else from admin. Fainites 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JzG/Guy. There is no pro-NLP camp. Firstly Fainites and 58.* tend to be on the side of skepticsm and scientific rigor. As far as I know they have no prior knowledge or personal experience in studying NLP. They are basing their edits on what is in the reputable / verifiable literature. It is a complex topic because there are so many different views with no black and white mainstream view. --Comaze 14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Users Comaze and Fainites. Rather than repeatedly and dismissively delete the concise view of science from the lead section - you could discuss why you feel it does not quite capture the full view of science and we could go on with improving it [82]. Also as yet - the Suppression of Information policy [83] has not been discussed at all on the talk page. I presented it several times and my suggestion for civil discussion was met with dismissive deletion. So as a solution I present a concise lead again and I present the Suppression of Information policy on the talk page [84]. Open for civil discussion. AlanBarnet 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I invite anybody reading this to go to the NLP article and read in particular the sections on Mental Health practice and Research Reviews and then state whether they think there is 'promotional obscuring of scientific views' as alleged (ad nauseam).Fainites 16:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Fainites. This Information Suppression policy is helpful: [85]. "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview.". As shown above - you (and Comaze and 58 and others) have removed clear succinct summaries of the critical view from the lead section. The whole article can easily be improved with reasonable following of that Suppression of Information link. AlanBarnet 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This message keeps getting posted to the NLP talkpage [86] whenever I post the Information Suppression policy[87] or whenever I suggest NPOV policies. If there is any disinformation or trolling (or any uncooperative action or comment) in the messages I post - I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thanks. AlanBarnet 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User 58.179.166.57 keeps restoring argumentative WP words to avoid [88] - even after the Cleanuptaskforce urging to remove undue debate. AlanBarnet 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistress seems to be causing disparaging comments about others. [89]. In order to calm the situation down I suggested a reduction in conflict and the wisdom of taking a break occasionally. AlanBarnet 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. User 58.178.199.92 seems to think I'm sockpuppeting - trolling and wikilawyering, removes my discussion and states "we're still waiting for a block on AlanBarnet" [90]. As far as I know Suppression of Information is on the NPOV tutorial [91] and supports editing according to NPOV policy. 58.178.199.92 and others still seem to me to be strongly reluctant to deal with important parts of NPOV policy. In the light of assessments here and the present situation on the NLP talkpage - I'll just have to civilly continue to present the tutorial in order to solve problems with the article. AlanBarnet 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy. The only person about whom there is even a COI allegation is Comaze (from AlanBarnet only). Can one editor be a 'camp'? Who else precisely are you including in the 'they' of the 'pro-NLP camp' who supposedly dominate the article and about whom there is apparently abundant evidence? Do we get to see this 'abundant evidence'?Fainites 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I presented this (below) and [92] on the NLP talkpage in order to sort the NLP article out as per NPOV and neutral wording. I am adding it here so admin can get a chance to add suggestions and some editors seem reluctant to countenance the finer points of NPOV policy so it may well get deleted or dismissed from the talkpage:

Hi all. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: [93].

• The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views.

• The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.

• Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”…. Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says…..

• Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically. The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.

• Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” [94]. This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections.

• We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have [95]. Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.

• There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs). Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides

So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing for bot approval

Section moved to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot#ANI

Dealing with Cplot edits

I happened to see one of Cplot's more recent edits before it was reverted. In it, the Cplot sock says that even though these edits are all being reverted, they are still worth making because they live on forever in the page histories and curious users look to see what has been reverted. I don't know whether that is right or not but I wonder if admins should begin the practice of deleting rather than merely reverting these edits. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to delete the entire WP:ANI and restore it all each time minus one edit each time he does it, be my guest. So, basically, it's impractical. Oversight would be an option though, however, I don't know if those with oversight permissions would consider this a proper use of their abilities. That'd be up to them to decide I'd imagine. Metros232 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The way the user interface is set up, edits to pages with huge histories like this are much easier to oversight than to delete. On less traveled pages, deletion might be an option. Thatcher131 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, until the better revision deletion system for admins is created (rather than the hack we're doing now), it's nearly impossible to delete a ceratin revision from a page with many edits. Martinp23 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of responding new edits where it's the top one in the history, not of going back through all the old ones. I thought deletion was easier under that circumstance, but please disregard this if I'm wrong. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the restore deleted edits page have a button that checks all the boxes? That way you'd only have to unclick the all the ones you want deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 23:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it works fine when using the shift key. Khoikhoi 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles with large edit histories brings the servers to their knees. Remember what happened when AfD got deleted? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, could someone explain this diff to me? -75.42.174.181 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an innocent error resulting from an edit conflict. Clumsy, perhaps, but I don't see a reason to assume it was malevolent. Could re-insert or ask the acting editor for clarification. Luna Santin 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation! (I wasn't presuming villainy.) Deletia follows. -75.42.174.181 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems absolutly strange that such an edit conflict somehow managed to slip by, as I thought I used thew '+' to add a new section - I'll experiment in one of the sandboxes (later) to see if I can reproduce it. --Sigma 7 08:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cplot would then just gloat about the workload that he was imposing on administrators. In any event, except when a particular version is cited somewhere with real importance, such diffs probably have even less importance than, say, comments to LiveJournal.com or to Usenet. Arguably, it's better for the world if Cplot wastes his time here. ;-D. -SlamDiego 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I had oversight, I'd use it to get rid of this obvious idiocy. I don't see a need to keep it around... Grandmasterka 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance on this issue - I'm not well and so don't familiarise myself with sockpuppeteers. Is CPlot the one currently insisting on posting the "federal clowns" rubbish at such places as the village pump? Crimsone 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

• I took this to User talk:Wiki Raja/ARYAN818, and there it stays. This is not the forum for lengthy discourse whihc belongs in dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we allowing a User with an unacceptable User name to edit? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is a common name meaning "noble". Just because a bunch of nutjobs hijacked the use of the word, doesnt make it "unacceptable". Unacceptable would be like "aryan nation" or "white power" or "black panther".Bakaman 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"818" is Nazi-speak for "Heil Adolf Hitler" (HAH). The combination of the two is not coincidental. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zoel on this. The user name is not only offensive, but promotes an offensive POV. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for coded references to White Power. I note that a check of his user page history shows him as being blocked once already for it. Why it was reversed I have no idea. See here and here for just two examples of the use of 818. Jeffpw 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You call those reliable sources? A White supremacist site and urban dictionary hardly attest to some sort of racism.Bakaman 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

??? This is getting more weird and eerier... Wiki Raja 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aryan may be a common name in India, but the user is behaving very intolerant and abusive of other people's ethnicities and heritage. Regardless of whether Dravidians and Ino-Aryans are from the same country or not, does not give one the right to put down the others ethnicity and harrass them. A combination of user:ARYAN818's user name and his attitude is not helping either. This is wikipedia, and we all should respect each other's culture, religous, and ethnic background. That's all I ask. Wiki Raja 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for an explanation of the 818 portion of the name on the User's Talk page. If the explanation is not forthcoming, or is not believable, he will be blocked. I personally think he should be blocked anyway for an unacceptable username even if he has a logical explanation, because the name is offensive to other people, whatever the reason he uses it. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I follow this page. Maybe these will help Area code 818 [96]. Prometheus^-X303- 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in Southern California. I know the 818 area code. I am not asking you or any other person why the user is using 818, I am asking ARYAN818. Please stop giving this user a chance to come up with excuses. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page you will see that he has already stated that 818 is his area code. Now personally I don't believe him but there is no reason to be short with PrometheusX303 Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. One more point, then I'll go back and sit in the corner. If this is the same person that has the MySpace profile, as evidenced by name, location, and aliases, then his story is set in stone. True or not, I don't see it changing just because he's questioned every other week. PrometheusX30314:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username clearly says Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.. ARYAN818 has been counseled for more than six months to come up with a new user name. I have given him a week, and then I will block the account. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding the user's stance here. If someone told me that the combination of my name and my postcode could be interpreted as a racist remark, I'd ask a 'crat to change it straight away. It wouldn't matter that its my name and postcope and I meant no offense. I just wouldn't want to take then risk of people thinking I was trying to be offensive. There seems to be a view that objecting to a username is equivalent to violating WP:AGF, it isn't. The 'oh, it means something in another language' shouldn't be a valid response. If my name meant 'kill all ginger haired people' in another language, it would be inappropriate to use in an international project. That I didn't know that doesn't matter; that there is a real risk of its being taken as offensive does. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Here are some shocking articles I have found in regards to this topic. [[97]] [[98]] [[99]] [[100]]

Wiki Raja 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

flaw in anti-vandalism bot

I've already deleted twice an article I wrote. The bot has already undeleted it once. It's obvious that the bot can't tell when an author deletes his own work. The article is Analisis de imagenes=Imagery analysis. I made the mistake of writing the article in the wrong version of wikipedia, and have already started the process of translating and introducing the article into the spanish edition.Radical man 7 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a flaw. It's quite deliberate. You did not delete the article, you just blanked it, which leaves an empty shell. We do not want empty, blank articles left lying around. The proper method for what you want to do is add a tag at the top of the article that says {{db-author}}. This is the code for "Author requests deletion" so an admin can actually delete the article properly. Fan-1967 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment - this sort of thing would be far less frequent if the current definition of G7 on WP:CSD were brought up to date. As it stands, it implies that an author only has to blank a page to request deletion. I feel that this needs to be changed to make it clear that authors must use {{db-author}} to get an article G7'd. Tevildo 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thats not always the way it is used though. Fairly reguarly an author blanks and someone else comes along and adds the speedy notice. Viridae^Talk 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• IME pages are usually blanked by new editors with no knowledge whatsoever of deletion criteria, like the one above who thought blanking and deleting were the same. The wording at WP:CSD#G7 does primarily say the author should request deletion. The note at the end simply says we can interpret blanking as a deletion request. Fan-1967 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot reverted an Article that I feel was a legit edit. Lenzar 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It might be better to discuss that further on that article's Talk page, but I suspect a "See also" directed to Indoor Soccer would be more appropriate than removing a large section of this article. I see you've already created a seperate article for Indoor American Football (note improper capitalization) as well. I would suggest putting a {{db-author}} tag on that article for now, and discuss the changes on the Talk page first. -- Kesh 23:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Javascript alert on blanking?

It shouldn't be too hard to add some code to MediaWiki:Common.js that would detect if a user is blanking an article and pop up a confirmation dialog saying something like:

"You are about to blank the whole page. If you created this page by mistake and want it deleted, please add the "{{db-author}}" tag to the page instead. Are you sure you want to blank the page anyway?"   (OK / Cancel)

Do you think this would be a good idea? -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It will just get vandals to put the db-author tag on articles they didn't write, and force Recent Changes patrollers to have to dig thru the article history to find out how actually wrote it, and then you'll get somebody arguing, "I was logged in as User:XXX when I wrote it and I forgot to re-log in when I put the db-author tag on it as an anon", or even worse, "I wasn't logged in when I created it, now I have an account". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Worse: if you warn potential vandals against blanking articles, they may engage in less detectable vandalism. The vast majority of page blankings are vandalism, and dealing with the much smaller number of authors wanting deletion is manageable. Fan-1967 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone about to delete as page tagged with {{db-author}} needs to check the history anyway; it's not as it people haven't been placing the tag on pages they didn't create — or on pages they did create but which have since been edited by others, or on pages they did create alone but which are nonetheless encyclopedic and worth keeping — before. You may, however, have a point about the possibility that explicitly mentioning it so prominently might make it a more popular vandalism tool; but we still need to make it prominent enough that legitimate contributors will find it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe more explanitory, such as "You are about to blank a page. Note that this is almost always considered Wikipedia:Vandalism. If you want it deleted, please see Wikipedia:Deletion." 68.39.174.238 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy wacky funtime

• User talk:SirChristdom
• User talk:Flintrock
• User talk:OpalPI
• User talk:WikiTitan

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—Cryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. Grandmasterka 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Fancy Moses. Danny Lilithborne 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Wikipedia. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 65.102.35.249 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 [101]. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Wikipedia EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Wikipedia. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talk • contribs).

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --tjstrf talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocked

I am using aol, and it states that my IP address is being blocked. My IP address is 207.200.122.44 . Please assist. CarmenBryan 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that's your IP? It isn't coming up in the block list or anything. —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried unblocking you. You can try and edit now. —Mets501 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Try using the secure gateway. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

that link doesnt work CarmenBryan 04:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can edit this page, you are not blocked. Simple as that. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ip address probably rotated to one of the occasionally blocked AOL ip addresses, and then rotated back out again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature

User:EaglesFanInTampa is using Jimbo as his nickname, so that his comments on talk pages are signed Jimbo. It is disconcerting to see Jimbo participating and !voting in discussions such Talk:Newark#Proposed move. Does this strike anyone else as improper? -- Donald Albury 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like it one bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, his sig links to his user page, not to User:Jimbo Wales. (See [102] for an example.) It may or may not be a great thing ... but I just wanted to clarify that he isn't trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales. --BigDT 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should treat "Jimbo" the same way we treat "God" and just not allow anyone else to use that name. I'm not talking about the username but even giving someone the name "Jimbo", "James", "Jim", etc at birth. --206.165.70.2 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably an innocent mistake if he's new, but definitely not a permissible nickname either. If he were to change it to, say, Jimbo Brown, it might be permissible then. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova asked him to change his nickname two weeks ago, and got this response. Theresa Knott's request today to change his name, and my notice that I had brought this here, and EaglesFan's response, are here. If everyone is agreeable, let's drop the subject. -- Donald Albury 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Jimbo Wales himself what he thinks, something tells me jwales hasnt trademarked his name on wikipedia :P. (assuming the person in question isnt a vandal) --Cat out 02:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jimbo redirects to User:Jimbo Wales. Names such as 'Jimbo Whales' have been blocked for being too much like his name. Using a nickname of 'Jimbo' that shows up on talk pages, whether intentional or not, causes a problem. No one should be using a nickname that looks like another user's accoint name. -- Donald Albury 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales were just some random user or even low-profile admin, then using the nickname Jimbo wouldn't be a problem. However, when he's the guy who runs the whole show, it's highly confusing and disruptive. EaglesFanInTampa should recognize that using a name that will be attributed by any experienced editor to another person is unacceptable. We're not trying to gang up on him here, we're trying to save mass confusion and accusations of imitating "The True Jimbo" later on. --tjstrf talk 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:USERNAME should be amended so that it clearly states that usernames/nicknames that resemble Jimbo's cannot be used. This is already on the borderline of the "Inappropriate usernames-Wikipedia terms" section of that policy, since we can interpret "Jimbo" as a name "implying an official position on Wikipedia".--Húsönd 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with *any* nickname that duplicates another user's account name. This example stood out because it was 'Jimbo'. How would you feel if some user were signing on talk pages with something like [[User:Mumblypeg|tjstrf]]? -- Donald Albury 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid comparison, given that tjstrf is my entire name, while Jimbo is only half of User:Jimbo Wales. A more accurate comparison would be a user signing as "Mr. Weys", half of User:Cyde's signature. Or the concurrent existance of both User:Nemu and User:TTN who both sign their names Nemu. If a user was signing as tjs, then that might be an issue, but if it was their real initials and they weren't regularly editing the same pages as me, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --tjstrf talk 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on User:Jimbo. Btw, that was created as a redirect to User:Jimbo Wales almost five years ago. The man is referred to in Wikipedia as 'Jimbo' much more often than as 'Jimbo Wales'. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is... so what if he uses the name "Jimbo"? Should other users be making blind assumptions based on the text in someone's signature? The chance of confusion is low, especially among experienced users. If someone thinks that it might be the real Jimbo, they should first check where the link in the signature goes to. In this case, that will instantly resolve any confusion. This situation reminds me of my days on the gamefaqs boards when users would be banned for having "CJ" in their names, even when there is clearly no chance of real confusion. --- RockMFR 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem I had was that I initially thought someone was counterfeiting Jimbo's signature. That meant I spent time looking into the matter that I could have spent more productively. Signing as 'Jimbo' is distracting, and some of of us still find it inappropriate even though it was a good faith sig. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea is messed up. I happen to know a person who has gone by the name Jimbo for almost 40 years. I guess if he wanted to join Wikipedia with the name lots of people know him by that would be impermissible? I understand the username policy is to prevent impersonation, but using the example of a bunch of letters like tjstrf's signature is comparing apples to oranges. When you start beating up on good editors simply because of their signature, rather than their edits or actions, you aren't helping the Encyclopedia, you're enforcing policy for the sake of policy. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your name is, or what you are called in real life, or what name you have used in 20 other internet venues, etc., if that name is already in use when you come to Wikipedia, you can't appropriate it for your own use. A nickname that matches a registered user name (and User:Jimbo has been registered since 2002) is a problem. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. Does the fact that I sign my signature with "Peter Dodge" mean that everybody named Peter can no longer sign using their actual name? Hell no. It shouldn't for Jimbo either. If Jimbo minds it he will see this AN/I report and block the user. If he doesn't, then why are WE worrying about it? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't mean no-one else can use the name Peter, but don't you think it would be just a tiny bit confusing if I also started to sign my name as "Peter M Dodge" (or as "Wizardry Dragon"), even if that actually was my real name? I wouldn't object to EaglesFanInTampa calling himself "Jimbo R. Smith" or "JimboX" or "The other Jimbo" or whatever, but the plain "Jimbo" is already taken, thank you very much. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock, usernames does call some serious stuff here. I've seen RFAs get racked up "oppose" votes purely because the user who was up for RFA had a signature that was different from his/her username. Jimbo is thrown quite often and always refers to Jimbo Wales himserlf; heck, even WP:JIMBO redirects to his user talk page. Hbdragon88 08:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this sitting 30 miles from Dublin Ireland, where Jimbo is a REALLY common nickname, I have to say that if Jimbo Wales doesn't mind nobody else should, though it might be wise to create a hard and fast protocol that, to avoid confusion, the name "Jimbo" can only be signed if accompanied by a suffix or prefix that is NOT "Wales", or that make it clear the editor is NOT Jimbo Wales? --Zeraeph 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He could call himself "The other Jimbo", or something... Although I don't know how much I'd like to be known as the "other" owner of my name. I'd tend to think that Wales guy is the "other" Jimbo... -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to trolling problems in the past, a lot of variants of Jimbo's name, such as User:Jimbo Whales, have been indefinitely blocked (that account was later deleted). A user making good contributions could probably get by with a user name incorporating 'Jimbo', but creating such user accounts will set off the 'troll radar' of many editors. -- Donald Albury 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid, the fact that he has the name Jimbo should not be a problem. It is a common first name and a someone must not have a monopoly over it. -Lapinmies 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, internet communities have "holy" names like "sysop" "admin" and this one has "Jimbo" and a few others. This isn't something new to the internet, it's nessessary for security. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me those a few others for future reference. -Lapinmies 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• These names should be clearly listed in WP:USERNAME, then, so there is no excuse and no confusion. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I really don't see a problem with a user signing with "Jimbo", as long as it is clear that the user is not Jimbo Wales. This should be pretty clear, not only because of the link to his user page (perhaps a note could be posted on there to clear any confusion?), but because of the fact that "Wales" is not mentioned anywhere in the signature. It's a popular first name and it's not unique; simply because Jimbo Wales has such a first name should not preclude anyone else from using their own name. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out hand. Read my response to these accusations on my talk page and let's move on...I already have. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations? Where? We all understand that your choice of nickname was perfectly innocent in intention. The only thing getting out of hand is your not-particularly-veiled threat to report us to the Wikimedia office for asking you to change your name. People are required to change their names all the time, for reasons ranging from it being too similar to a real individual's name to being in a non-Latin script. We aren't ganging up on you, and if you believe that you should reread the discussion above, where several people advocate allowing you to keep your name, either simply as Jimbo or by some form of disambiguation. --tjstrf talk 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and I appreciate everything that everyone has done to stick up for me. However, I have much better things to do with my time on this site than to be singled out just because my name's similar as someone else. I really am appreciative of everyone who's fighting in my defense, but that comment was directed toward the people who started this in the first place, not you guys. It just not worth fighting with a brick wall, though, and you can only spin your tires in mud for so long. I'm willing to just bite the bullet and move on. I've made 25 significant edits today and I would much rather spend my time doing that than trying to explain to someone 6000 miles away why the nickname "Jimbo" is not offensive, deceiving, or improper. If someone can't realize that there's more than one Jimbo in St. Pete, than what's the point in trying to change their mind. However, thjsrf and everyone else trying to side with me, I really am thankful to know that's there's clear-headed people left on this site and you're all welcome to ask me to help you out with anything you need...you know where to find me! Now, back to my editing of Florida roads.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had made a topic on Jimbo's talk page asking what he thought about this issue, but I guess it's already been resolved. Hbdragon88 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sysop help requested

I've received some e-mails via Wikipedia e-mail that I believe might require sysop attention. Quasi-legal threats are at issue. It's really quite surreal, frankly. If you would be willing to receive mail from me regarding this, please let me know. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sent an email to you about this. Superm401 - Talk 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got a few sets of eyes taking a look at it now. Thanks for being willing. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix (talk · contribs)

I previously warned this user for comments like these, and his response was "as long as this idiot slap his rhetoric of Armenian this and Armenian that, he'll be answered in kind as it is the only language he understand", for which he was blocked for 3 hours by Danny. Since then, he has made the following comment:

Look dude, what do you think readers will conclude? A user who slander an entire people in every given occasion and dump materials from a known racist website and use it as sole source in one side, and another user who slander that member in particular? Regardless of the policies here? As for personal attacks. Did you see me on this page slandering other Turks? I am even having good relations with Lutherian. Regarding Rauf Orbay, yes! I did not answer you, and for a simple reason, the guy was accused to destroy large junk of materials involving him in the massacres, his aubiography itself is full of praise of the Kemalistic regime and the accusations about him being a traitor have been cleaned up, including by the republic of Turkey. So him being a traitor and wanting to make up things allegedly said by Ataturk is your oppinion. You are not forced to believe him. But I fail to see why someone who was accused of destroying records of the destruction of the Armenians will make up thing to support a position which evidences bringing to it, he has destroyed? Comming back to neurobio? Someone who calls this article trash and hasn't any respect to the entire project which he calls in his namespace a made house, could only be here for a single reason, which he is so good at, that is, slinging here back and forth what he could use as immunition from the website tallarmeniantale. Fad (ix) 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [103]

Please give me advice as what I should do... Khoikhoi 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I were a sysop I'd give them a very very strong warning and then block them if they perist. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Senorpescado

I have indefinitely blocked Senorpescado (talk · contribs). I deleted his article, Fresh frozen seafood, as nothing but spam. Coming in as an anon, the user made this edit to my Talk page. I have blocked the anon for 24 hours, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you want other admins to review the block? Proto::► 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just reporting here in case anybody disagrees. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Block to enforce wikibreak?

What's the rule with requesting a block to enforce a wikibreak - talking about myself here. I understand that self-blocks are frowned upon, but can another admin block me by my request? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be well-tolerated. I won't do it for you. Try editing your hosts file instead. Also, this would have been more appropriate at WP:AN. Superm401 - Talk 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I actually meant to post it there. My mistake. ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's silly and theatrical. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be the devil's advocate, internet addiction (of whatever form) is pretty widely accepted as a "real thing" and we've even got an article on it, and Bryan Dereksen has just been featured in an international magazine with his "over 70,000 edits to Wikipedia entries" in a story titled "Just can't get enough." </devil's advocate>
brenneman 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 'don't self-block' rule comes from a couple of technical issues that have been resolved over the last year or two. The first was a server load issue—apparently at one point the servers checked the block list by going through each and every entry sequentially to determine whether or not an editor was blocked. Now, I believe that a more efficient algorithm is used to compare an editor's name and IP with the block list, essentially rendering this concern moot.

The second issue was related to collateral damage. Blocking an editor was also apt to cause autoblocks on that editor's IP(s). Now, (I think?) this is fixed if the blocking admin unchecks the 'Block anonymous users only' and the 'Automatically block the last IP address used by this user' check boxes.

Does anyone know of any other technical reasons why self-blocks or user-requested blocks should be disallowed? If not, that just leaves the question of policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Username

I've left a note for User:SofaKingGr8 to change his username (read it out loud). Account was blocked as vandalism only but unblocked per an email request and WP:AGF. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that at first...*snickers* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He had mentioned in his emails to me that he felt he should change his username if he was going to continue to contribute. ;) Syrthiss 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rampant removal of thread

The constant removal of a thread by an assorted variety of IPs is bordering on disruption on this board. I was wondering if there was precedence in semi-protecting this board. While I realize that this is a draconian and potentially controversial measure, I believe that the person behind the removal of the thread is unlikely to stop until we apply such a drastic measure. Any thoughts? Constructive criticism welcome. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention a certain banned user clowning around here using IPs. Do it. The sooner, the better. MER-C 07:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am probably going to be slaughtered for this ;) but why not semi-protect this page? Unless you have an account really there should be no need for you to come here anyway. Yes, I know it is against the spirit of Wikipedia but a lot of people are going to get blocked without reason when we need to block entire IP ranges. MartinDK 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the summer there was a period of time that both WP:AN and WP:ANI were semiprotected while I was dealing with a user who had a similar amount of ISP usage that was harassing me. I agree with MartinDK that unless you have a fairly old account, you shouldn't be here, necessarily.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · count) has been constructively commenting on certain issues, including a request to check his/her edit to the {{db-copyvio}} template. [104] Hbdragon88 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing great IP user, whom we need more of. – Chacor 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. He can do a rename to The user formerly known as 68.39.174.238. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be very unfair to do that, he has said previously that he isn't going to register an account. We should not be shutting ANI to anons. – Chacor 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We're doing it out of sheer necessity, not because we are anti-anon. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chacor, if you were me, struggling to control the vandalism to this page because two totally independent dynamic IP vandals were vandalising this page, what would you do? There was little way to get a word in edgeways, since the page was going back and forth between revisions from both the vandals. Notice I customised the sprotection notice to apologise to all the anons? The fact remains that sprotected, the board can be used by almost everyone, but were it to be unsprotected at present, it would be filled with vandalism, and nobody would be able to add notices due to constant reversions. Unfortunately, the fact remains that not many anons use WP:ANI, and I really am sorry that that user is shut out. But right now, it is totally necessary. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pity we have to shut anons out of the conversation, but we are, as Deskana said, doing it out of necessity. Anyone who needs help can go to some signed-up user and ask them to post on their behalf; we can't continually let this noticeboard waste users' time and bandwidth by letting the whole page get filled with vandalism. This is only a short compromise until these socks/vandalbots/etc. are shot down. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:1B6

User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([105]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([106]) and talkpage ([107]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([108]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranks and hierarchies

One of the biggest problems with Esperanza was the leadership council, which made decisions that were binding on other people. I recently found Wikipedia:Motto of the day which has a similar hierarchy. It has several sections that may only be edited by "overseers" (whatever that is) and appears to make decisions based on seniority of those "overseers". I think this is bad and unwiki. Thoughts, anyone? >Radiant< 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite concerning. Dan Bryant is listedgone, and he's a frequent ANI-er, so I think let's wait for his opinions. – Chacor 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"My opinions", sounds like a mini-heirachy for this thread - just kidding :) I forgot all about this "project". Anyways, I'm strongly against that sort of heirachy, and combined with my inactivity regarding MOTD, I've speedily-resigned. As you can see, I "signed up" (or was it elected? I can't remember) during August, when I was a very new editor. Although MOTD is good, the current system of "overseers" isn't, and I don't have any brainwaves currently on how to fix it.

I think that there will be an overwhelming concensus here to remove the "overseers" per se, and replace it with a better system where everyone is equal (and no, none will be more equal than others. As I said, MOTD is a good concept, and it should be reformed instead of being dished into hell for being heirachal. Again, I'd just like to repeat I'm totally and utterly against this kind of, in my opinion, destructive structure which promotes the idea that some users' opinions are worth infinitely more than others - within reason it is appropriate, eg admins to trolls, but having it spelled out and definitive in such a black-and-white fashion is not the Wiki way. Wow, I still can't believe I joined that...I hope I'm forgiven for a lapse in judgement given it was so long ago *grovels* :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The hiearchy, in my opinion, should be removed immediately. Also, as I have seen in the past, MOTD has been going rather downhill. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen such bureaucracy for such a tiny concept, one I'd never even heard of before. Any small group of editors could do this if it's seen as important (I don't) with little coordination required. Grandmasterka 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty evident what the concensus here will be, so I'm going to go through and rid MOTD of this heirachy. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(responds to self) I believe I've got rid of every bit of hierarchal creep that was in MOTD, and I've left a note on the no-longer-"Overseer",-now-"Co-ordination" desk linking here. I also made it clear that everyone who wants to is invited to help co-ordinate the project from the desk, and I removed the veto voting scheme and promotion "rules" from the procedure text at the top of two of the pages. If you see anything else, feel free to remove it and replace it with a less rank-like system and/or description. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The "anything else" I saw was a "I am the senior overseer" userbox on User:Geo.plrd, which I've now replaced with {{User MOTD}}. >Radiant< 11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I didn't spot that - I didn't leave Wikipedia:Motto of the day and subpages, actually. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd seems to be obsessed with creating hierarchal structures on Wikipedia (with himself as head, of course). It seems to be his sole reason for being here. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There’s still Wikipedia:Motd/Template:Warnvote. —xyzzy_n 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. Tagged for speedy deletion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I do believe that this is blatantly excessive bureaucracy for something as simple as a daily tagline. Brazil, anyone? >Radiant< 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess, all the date subpages of mottos now-used (eg all of 2006) can be killed. However, if you take out all those, there is barely any pages. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A handful of the date pages have talk pages; modulo those (and possibly page history, if motto pages were edited), they seem entirely redundant with the schedule archive. —xyzzy_n 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Far out, it all got readded, and there is still the apparent group of users who have their names distinctly listed in the big yellow box at the top. I'm half-tempted to MfD the desk, just to get rid of it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd took over after User:Go for it! moved on, i think. Geo does indeed have a long history of inventing hierarchies and pseudo-projects, and joining everything in sight.

They (MOTD) just asked again about putting the MOTD in the Community Portal. I still believe it to be very unsuitable. It might be acceptable if confined to userspace, though I'd be happy to see it MfD'd entirely. I prefer humour hidden like a treasure, and actually funny.. —Quiddity 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vishal1976 blocked indefinitely

I have blocked this user indefinitely for making a death threat against another user and continuing stream of personal attacks. The diffs are just too many, a close scrutiny of his contributions and User talk:Vishal1976 would be revealing.

• Also, Bhangi is a derogatory word for a Shudra, Madarchod is for motherfucker. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"I will murder , kill you Venus62 if you did anymore edits at any article relate to Maratha"^[109][110], "I declear war against Tamil people , Venus62 Parthi etc who are constantly vandalising Maratha related article, you are designated as a bregader of Maratha army"^[111] "Reverted anti Hindu and anti Maratha edits , god will punish you"^[112] etc. is a sure-fire way to be speedy-indef blocked. Endorse block of this user, and I can't really see any chance of a redemption/apology/changing editing habits/unblock. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call... he was being a dick... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't call the WP:KETTLE black. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik Bornmann

I would appreciate it if a couple of others could check in on Erik Bornmann from time to time as well, and ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to. Given the nature of the article, with a lot of WP:COI going on and a no consensus AFD infested by socks and meatpuppets (here), I have stripped the article of all unreferenced statements to try and ensure a reliable article is built from the ground up. Proto::► 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm all for removing unsourced information (though all the policy in the world doesn't seem to prevent cries of "omg blanking vandalism" whenever someone dares to use the delete key), the stuff about the BC Legislature Raids seems to cite reliable sources. Of course, that was the only part that did, and putting that information back in on its own would probably be undue weight.

If the only sourcable stuff is about the raids, perhaps it should just be a redirect to BC Legislature Raids. I'm not familiar with the scandal, but he doesn't appear to have been a major player. The main article doesn't even mention him currently. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not having much knowledge about the man himself or the background (purely Enforcing The Rules here, capitals intended, as it's better than the squabbling and edit warring that was going on around the article), I removed everything that wasn't referenced, and there was no references vis-a-vis the BC Legislature Raids. If some exist, then I would add it, but that's a different sort of content issue. Proto::► 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a RFCU regarding this still outstanding (as of 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)): Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rascalpatrol. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the - now confirmed - socks all wanted to delete the article, it looks like closing the AFD as no consensus/keep/anything other than a delete was about right. Proto::► 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

User talk:59.144.141.207 needs to be stopped immediately. Tintin (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Jacob Peters socks to be blocked

This are a latest lot, described by Checkuser as "likely" at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. The ones to be blocked are:

• Fox33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Daniel Shays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FBabeuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has already been blocked, so it's just the first two that need to be done. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I thought you were admin. :P — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not yet:) Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someday Soon F♯, D♭ -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, quit with the flattery or I shall verily break you in pieces like a potter's vessel, for he is like a refiner's fire. Moreschi ^Deletion! 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User DXRAW

Would someone versed in the vandalism patterns of User:Dick Witham please check DXRAW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am blocking, because I am pretty sure it is him. Thanks Guy (Help!) 13:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Dick Witham was blocked only for an inappropriate username, and there's no "suspected/confirmed sockpuppets" list, so I can't see if this editor has already used abusive socks. By the way, there's something fishy going on between this guy and User: The Mob Rules (very probable sock of User: Chadbryant, which would explain why he's so eager to get at what he thinks is a sock of Chad's No1 enemy User:Dick Witham). yandman 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DXRAW is nothing to do with Dick Witham. If you check the edit history of DXRAW you'll see plenty of productive edits. Like many editors on here, he then had the misfortune to encounter Chadbryant who levelled sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet allegations against any editors who disagreed with him over content. If anything The Mob Rules is a clear sockpuppet of Chadbryant. One Night In Hackney 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, User:Dick Witham was not blocked solely for his username. It was one of a number of abusive sock puppets being manipulated by the same person. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the history, I only saw the block log. yandman 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits like these make me suspect DXRAW is an ozzie, whereas this looks more like the work of one of our apple-pie eating friends (the Waltons haven't invaded Australia yet). yandman 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. Unblocked and apologised. Clearly I got trolled, so anyone who wants to wield the banhammer on the Chadbryant sock has my blessing. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would block The Mob Rules as a fairly obvious sock or impersonator of Chadbryant (if impersonator, it would likely be a DickWitham sock), except I could be accused of a conflict of interest since he nominated an article for AfD for which I !voted "Keep". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no such compunction. Indefinitely blocked as a blatant sock of a banned user. Proto::► 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fwdixon(2nd)

I boldly closed this investigation because based on the diffs provided there by the accused it was pretty clear this was a spurious investigation opened in retaliation. Being how I'm not an admin however, I wanted to mention it here in case anyone disagrees with my conclusion of action.--Isotope23 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Beefjerky dot com spammer

(Moved from WP:AIV)

• 63.239.251.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- persistent beefjerky dot com spammer who's been warned repeatedly across the many accounts he's used. Back again today [113]. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Anon SPA link spamming of Jerky (food). Accounts used that are not shared: 63.239.248.36 (talk · contribs), 63.239.251.86 (talk · contribs), 63.239.248.88 (talk · contribs), 63.239.249.35 (talk · contribs), 63.239.248.90 (talk · contribs), 64.173.197.166 (talk · contribs), 67.120.131.170 (talk · contribs), 67.118.44.102 (talk · contribs), 65.102.75.12 (talk · contribs), 76.210.28.83 (talk · contribs). Potentially shared account: 63.239.248.1 (talk · contribs). Spam blacklisting unlikley -- Meta admins normally require any spamming be widespread across many articles. If you can't block the shared accounts, can you at least semi-protect Jerky (food)?This guy will keep at it as long as Wikipedia links make him money and good Google page-ranking. I've spent hours on this one and I need an admin's help. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I goofed in making this report (see strikethrough); for once -- just once -- this person added a legit link. Nevertheless, I encourage admins to consider blocking these accounts (except the shared one) and/or semi-protecting the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I bet we could make a good case for spam blacklisting it. Thats less disruptive than blocking all those various ips or semiprotecting Jerky (food). I'm willing to be the one asking for the blacklist if you'd like. Syrthiss 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- I would appreciate it. Also see the WP:SPAM link above -- there are other beef jerky spammers you may or may not want to add (this guy is far and away the most persistent). --A. B. ^(talk) 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If possible, blacklisting the site would be the best fix. It's been repeatedly added to this article over the last four months, and it's clearly a retail sales site with no real value. Thanks in advance to Syrthiss for taking this up over at meta. -- Satori Son 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another block

HowardWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who added Jerusalem Post Radio (a web radio station run from the JP building) and an article on its webmaster, Howard Shroot, plus loads of links to interviews on jpostradio.com into multiple articles. I rolled them back and that left pretty much no links to the site, so it's evidently not one that other editors find worth linking. Anyway, I've blocked him and left a message on Talk, anyone is free to unblock as long as he's indicated he understands the problems and has given a credible undertaking not to start up again. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

evasion by indef-blocked User:EccentricRichard

Vox Humana 8' (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not very sneaky is he? Anyway I was wondering if his edits should be summarily reverted or just his page-moves. — CharlotteWebb 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has just equated my edits to "pelican shit", which isn't surprising, considering he was blocked in 2006 for insisting that "Wikipedia is Communism". — CharlotteWebb 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User is an obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked EccentricRichard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and should be blocked accordingly which will solve the problem. ju66l3r 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha...maybe I should read the headline I'm posting under occasionally... /blush. ju66l3r 17:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely. This user is a clear sockpuppet. I invite review of my action. —bbatsell ¿? 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article created by sockpuppet?

What should I do with an article (Charles C. Poindexter) created by a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user (User:Mykungfu)? I had sent it to AfD, primarily because I didn't think the subject met WP:BIO, but after seeing the debate (including comments by Mykungfu), I don't believe that is the case. He is notable, so the article's other issues (such as it being a POV fork from Alpha Phi Alpha) should be dealt with elsewhere. My question is whether an article created and almost solely edited by a blocked user should simply be deleted on that basis. I'm also hesitant to overstep my bounds here, as I was also the admin who blocked the last two MKF socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Articles created by Banned/InDef blocked folks should be speedied without prejudice to recreation under CSD C5 (Sock of blocked/banned user). If the article is notable, it will be remade. A ban/block is exactly that. There's no wiggle room with "Ban, except for articles that are notable". SirFozzie 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would keep the article but reduce it to a stub - thereby losing the content added by the banned user and allowing a new article to grow. I voiced the same opinion at the AFD.--Spartaz 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it per CSD-G5. However, it does appear that the subject is notable, so if the article is re-created by a legitimate user, I won't AfD it again. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Elnurso/Babek777

Elnurso recently got blocked for breaking 3rr, however, he just created another account, Babek777, just so he can continue starting an edit war.Here are Elnurso's contrib's: [114] and here is Babek777: [115] As you can see, they are the same person, and Elnurso just created Babek777 so that he could continue blanking out a section of that article. Please deal with him accordingly.Azerbaijani 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page mass posting

Hypnosadist (talk · contribs) has posted to a lot of user talk pages soliciting input to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee. I am concerned the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob. Even assuming good faith, this was more inclined to escalate than resolve the dispute, so I'm rolling back the posts. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here, Guy. It's pretty common to contact users who have previously commented in an RfC (which is what was done here) if further action is being taken (he is preparing a request for arbitration). I won't revert you, but I wouldn't qualify it as "rustling up a lynch mob." —bbatsell ¿? 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick jaunt through your talk page and see that more fundamentally, he appears to be picking and choosing commenters, which is obviously canvassing, so I retract my above comment. —bbatsell ¿? 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

yep - that's a no-no - trying to stack the deck. I think Guy was right to remove the soliciting. --Charlesknight 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that I commented in the original RfC I'm not sure how much impact soliciting my opinion again is supposed to have. You have a point about the canvassing, but removing talk page threads that have already been replied to isn't very productive. --tjstrf talk 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to reinstate the conversational element. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

":::I have slowly contacted a 7 people over 2 days and had 5 replys, no one contacted has said don't post. As for canvasing how am i ment to build a case against an admin without talking to the people he has delt with. The RfC which came to nothing was a good place. to start. This is just an attempt to stop an arbitration against an admin and find having my talk deleted highly offencive and the rest civility rules don't allow me to even start on.Hypnosadist 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You posted text soliciting input in an RfC designed to get InShaneee stripped of the sysop bit. The text was the same on all Talk pages. In both tone and target, it was unacceptable, as noted above. Please do not do this again. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rfc had stopped, i'm trying to get an arbitration on Inshaneee and his conduct. As a result of that i do want him stripped of his sysop powers, because of the way he uses them. This is not spam so what policy are you deleteing them under?Hypnosadist 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh look NuclearUmpf has just reverted Guys deleteion of my message, maybe he wanted to help stop Inshanee abuseing his powers as well.Hypnosadist 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think your tone will help anything, Hypnosadist--please try being the one NOT running around calling editors "douches." However, I don't object to the message being put on my talk page, but am a little irritated that it was deleted without notice on my talk page. Hypnosadist could have posted this on the InShaneee RfC, that he was moving on to arbitration, except that InShaneee archived his own RfC while it was still active, not giving Hypnosadist the opportunity to use that avenue. KP Botany 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could i make a request of guy to keep his accusations of which polices i am breaking together, preferably here. At the moment he is claiming i am breaking Wikipedia:Canvassing but no vote or Afd or such is ongoing nor is my posting disruptive.Hypnosadist 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A third editor i contacted has reverted but was re-reverted and a message left by an admin says not to. [116] This is getting beyond a joke now, is Guy really aloud to run blocking coverage to stop an arbitration about another admin.Hypnosadist 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SPAM#Canvassing. May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr, file the RfAr, then notify all parties (i.e., not just ones that you agree with) that an RfAr has been filed. That's generally how this is done. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"May I recommend you stop for a second, assemble your own version of events for the RfAr" thats what i'm doing! Bbatsell this case invovles probably 20-30 different people Inshaneee has had less that optimal interactions with, such as the 7 people i MASS mailed.Hypnosadist 19:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I got one of the messages from Hypnosadist, [117], but there were more people involved in the RFC other than the seven of us. While I will not comment one way or another on this issue, I really think that the RFC went nowhere and no real solutions were brought up. I would suggest another firm RFC, out of InShaneee's control, so we can see what could happen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just found something. Before the messaging began, I found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_abuse. This was composed by Hypnosadist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question, so simply giving a neutral notice and posting on the talk pages of all who had responded to the RfC, even those supporting InShaneee, and including InShaneee, would have been okay, or Hypnosadist would have had to wait until after posting an RfAr? I think it's an important distinction, particularly with the RfC closed prematurely, as it would have been a general venue to post a single notice rather than proceeding to post messages on individual talk pages. I don't see that InShaneee controlled the RfC outside of archiving it during the holidays. Thanks for the link, Bbatsell. KP Botany 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist also mentioned about the posting on the messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block, so that pretty much two, public places, that he mentioned he will contact people involved with the RFC about the impending RFAr. I won't get involved in the RFAr, but I wish for no sanctions to be placed on Hypnosadist for this, since he was going to have to do it anyways due to ArbCom procedures. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to KP Botany: essentially, yes. If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine. The problem here was twofold: first, the apparent selection of only those likely to be anti; second, the tone of the message, which was essentially "let's all get together to get InShaneee desysopped". Posting a single comment inviting participation, in neutral terms, to all existing participants in a process, is not usually viewed as problematic, although it may depend on the circumstances. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't contact everyone from the rfc and Inshaneee's talk page because i thought THAT would be spamming, oh the irony.Hypnosadist 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean if Hypnosadist had left messages on the talk pages of all those who commented on InShaneee's RfC, he would not be accused of spamming? Please explain this policy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ahwaz, why did you delete my post? I'll assume it was by accident, which I've done before. Ironic, but now you know how to do it in the future, and, as Zscout370 points out administrators had notice beforehand about what you intended to do, and the tone you would take, and no one bothered to stop you before you did it. So, it appears it's not a well-understood or well-known or well-respected or .... policy, and it's not like you did it on the sly. In general, though, being mellow about the situation will make it easier for everyone, potentially gain you more supporters and clearly deliniate between you and the person you are complaining about, not just on Wikipedia, but in all situations. So, in the future be neutral and invite everyone to the party, but, yes, oh the irony of it all. Thanks for the information, Guy. KP Botany 20:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had deleted your post and wasn't aware that I had broken any policy. Are your remarks referring to me or Hypnosadist?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As you'll see from Hypnosadist's Talk, I went there and told him that he had done wrong, and pointed out why, and did so in terms which assumed good faith (ignorance is a defence on Wikipedia). I went out of my way to assume that this was a one-off based on not knowing it's wrong. Sadly Hypnosadist chose to bluster and escalate rather than ask for clarification. "You can't do that!" tends not to work with the better-known and more active admins, because generally we are doing it precisely because we can - and usually should - do that. We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just a joke to you isn't it "We are the rouge admin cabal and our anthem is "We Will Block You" but only if you persist after your errors have been pointed out." This is pathetic!Hypnosadist 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to be contacted by Hypnosadist regarding this matter and was unhappy that his message to me was censored on my talk page by Guy, who refused to allow me to revert his deletion of the message to me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A joke? No. Using humour to attempt to defuse the situation. You are taking this way too seriously. Bu don't be fooled, WP:ROUGE has a very serious message. So come down from the Reichstag and get a sense of perspective, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, as I posted above, it's best to wait to leave notes on the RfC commenters pages until an RfAr has been filed. Otherwise it's like you're plotting to overthrow someone, which shouldn't be your intention. Your intention should be to tell your side of the story, let everyone else tell theirs as well, and then allow the ArbCom to come to the appropriate conclusion(s). —bbatsell ¿? 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up, InShaneee gets given a clean slate after so many examples of uncivil and over-the-top actions that breach Wikipedia guidelines and he is let off the hook without so much as a warning. Hypnosadist, who was insulted by InShaneee, feels this doesn't adequately address his or others' concerns about this admin and wants to take it further, asking other editors suffering similar grievances to outline their complaints ahead of arbitration. In response, admins come down on him like a tonne of bricks for allegedly spamming users' talk pages (although those users have not complained). This is about admins covering each others' backs, not an even application of policy. This strengthens Hypnosadist's case for taking the problem to a higher level.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that the admin's are not coming down on him for spamming folks pages. If he had contacted ALL members of the RfC, then there would have been no repercussions. Instead, he selectively chooses those who would be the most sympathetic to his cause . That's not allowed. Please read the notes earlier in the case, and try to assume good faith of their legitimate issues. Comments like "This is about admins covering each others' backs" do nothing to help your cause. SirFozzie 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Sir Fozzie i was accused of as the title suggests MASS posting and now you say i did not post enough when it turns out what i was doing was not spam. What happened was the charge against me was changed mid stream when it became obviouse that i was not guilty of any spamming.Hypnosadist 23:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps as for my good faith how about "the user seems to be trying to rustle up a lynch mob" thats good faith i take it. Hypnosadist 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are seeing parts of this discussion and not others. Several folks (admin, and not-admin alike, including myself) have agreed that the mass discussion you were doing was ok in theory.. EXCEPT: A) you were only letting people know that already agreed with you, when to be fair, you are supposed to let all sides know that you are adding more information to the RfC, and inviting comment, and B)You did not do so in a neutral manner. SirFozzie 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I have explained MULTIPLE times the correct procedure for the future, and have explained exactly what policies you did not follow. You were not blocked, you are not being attacked, you are not being hindered in any way. Please acknowledge this and move on. Thank you. —bbatsell ¿? 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Bbatsell i understand the correct proceedure, that from now i should go to arb com then tell inshaneee that i've done it then try to get the evidence for my case. I am being attacked as this tread is about how i'm wrong while i'm trying to get justice for how me and many other people have been treat by inshaneee. I've been hinderd by having my messages deleted on talk pages, i deliberately did not post loads of messages just so i would not be accused of spamming and then i am accused of doing that because of how few messages i posted. I am really having difficulty with this.Hypnosadist 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not about your attempts to get "justice". That's not the issue at hand here. There are other places for that. Like the RFC you have filed. You didn't follow WP proceedure in your canvassing. Period. Accept that and move on. No one is having a big black mark against their name. No one is getting blocked, banned, etcetera. The only thing you are doing is prejuducing people AGAINST your case, with your constant complaints about how you're being treated unfairly, despite SEVERAL people trying to explain what you did incorrectly so we can all move on. Now, PLEASE, take the advice you are given and move on. SirFozzie 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not filed an RfC ever! Given that you have that fact wrong could you relook at this case!Hypnosadist 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be the confusion "If Hypnosadist had contacted everybody who commented on InShaneee's RfC and noted that he was adding additional information to that RfC and inviting participants to consider it, that would have been fine". I'm not doing anything to do with an RfC, the one A Link with the past started died with nothing happening. Hypnosadist 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is because a RfC cannot hand out disciplinary measures. You need an arbitration to do that. BTW, I have reviewed the information. It makes things worse AGAINST you, not for you. You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin (who even I agree has not been lily white in this whole issue). You are/were attempting "Trial by Ambush" here, (please don't attempt to tell me different, telling folks that you are messaging them only because they supported your case in the RFC as in [[118]] . Just end this farce, Stop claiming you're being persecuted in here, and get on with the Arbitration (then let EVERYONE involved know, not just those on your side). ~~

Actually Hypnosadist I did add the note that you had explained what you were going to do before you did it in two notes (as Zscout pointed out) and that folks/admins could have asked you not to before you did what you did, and I pointed out that you didn't try to hide it or anything. Still, this is, imo, the kind of thing that happens when people "in power" abuse it or are perceived to abuse it, it builds up bad feelings, the kind that don't readily go away. That's why I also urge you to take a cool step back to deal with this. KP Botany 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At last my real crime is revealed "You are actively soliciting those who agree with you to file a case against the admin" yep thats a fair cop, i only told you that every time you asked.Hypnosadist 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lx

Hi folks! Not sure if this is the right place to report it, but this template needs fixing. It's just a matter of repositioning a couple of braces, but it appears that an admin needs to do it. Tevildo 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed (I think...). Btw, it wasn't protected, so an admin wasn't required. —bbatsell ¿? 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks OK now. I tried to edit it myself and failed; probably just a transient server problem. Tevildo 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Weirdoactor

Out of the blue, Weirdoactor (talk · contribs) posted this comment on my Talk page. I considered it verging on a personal attack, if not a threat, and I replied with this, which was probably not the most diplomatic response, but I wanted to make it clear that his comment on my Talk page was worrisome. He removed the comment, calling it "admin harrassment". I reverted the removal. He responded on my Talk page with this. This is completely coming out of the blue, as I had no previous dealings with him except for suggesting he be civil in an AfD discussion. This threat should not be idly dismissed, but I have no intentions of continuing the discussion. I will, however, take action if there are further such threats issued against anyone else. The User's comments on Talk pages have been generally of such poor quality. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. My previous interaction with this user was completely acceptable and very pleasant, but that kind of conduct as listed by Zoe cannot really be tolerated. Final warnings needed per WP:NPA. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I really don't like the look of that - a little chat about civility is in order. --Charlesknight 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... yeah, needs one final warning from someone not!Zoe and if the incivility continues, a 24h block is definitely in order. —bbatsell ¿? 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had some brief encouters with this editor and found him to be very reasonable and civil. This is out of character. I suggest attempt at clarification and discussion, not blocking, as the appropriate course of action. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This was the comment that I suggested he needed to be civil about. See also [119], [120], [121] (and note the edit summary), [122]. I stopped at that point. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for posting all these diffs, it helps to know the situation background. I will attempt to obtain an understanding of what Weirdoactor's view of the situation is, as I can see no reason for his characterizing your comments as harassment, or any reason for his reactions at all. Hopefully it is just a case of him having a Very Bad Day and reading your posts wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

His replies to you on his Talk page seem to be more in a similar vein. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Perhaps we should ask Durova, as the only admin he seems to have respect for, to take a look? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. His attitude seems to be that the "deletionists" are out to destroy Wikipedia and he's here to protect it from the evil ones. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that, but his current attitude is certainly "any admin who politely informs me my incivility and hostile demeanor is unacceptable is harrassing me, and anyone who says s/he isn't is just protecting her/his friends and is a Bad Admin too!" which is hardly a helpful or rational attitude. I wouldn't have taken the trouble, except that I had interacted with this editor before, as I've mentioned, and seen nothing to indicate this kind of attitude - as Moreschi has also noted above. I'll post to Durova's talk page, up to her whether she wants to give it a go or not. I now withdraw any objection to any block deemed acceptable by any admin, my attempt to help this user resulted in insults and accusations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Hi! Please see my talk page for a short but sweet mea culpa. Also, Zoe?

• I was referring to myself here in terms of a need for caffeine. Me. The sleepy editor. Hi!
• Re: here; Jmabel had stated that he wouldn't be returning to the thread; it wasn't an attack on him in any way.

Just thought I'd clarify. If you have any more diffs of mine you'd like me to clarify, please do let me know. Ta. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weirdoactor's rather... uh... weird, suffers from an juxtapositionally idiosyncratic sense of humour, just like some others; but my previous conversations with him have been harmless. Just be a little nice with those you don't know, they might misapprehend your intentions. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat made by 209.7.118.199

This anon user has left a death threat (WHOEVER RE-WROTE MY TALK PAGE WILL DIE A BLOODY DEATH!) on his talk page. Please deal with it ASAP. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Page is now protected per Borg Queen. Syrthiss 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Decimal block bug?

Didn't see anything on bugzilla that looked like it matched:

Earlier today, Consumed Crustacean blocked 68.254.181.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for "2.37685 weeks" (see block log). However, the wiki software parsed that as...

17:41, 8 January 2007, Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.254.181.254 (contribs) (expires 02:37, 24 February 2020, anon. only) (Unblock) (Repeat school based IP-vandal, with much activity recently. Anon-only block.)

...which is considerably longer than 2.37685 weeks. Basically it looks like it took 2.37 as 02:37, and the remaining 685 as "685 weeks" (13.173 years, or 2020).

Anyone seen this before, or should I submit it to bugzilla? Syrthiss 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth did he block them for 2.37685 weeks anyway? Isn't that a little overprecise? --tjstrf talk 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever. I would have done a simple 2 or 3 week block if I had known this. The system should have an error check built in to refuse such input rather than outright breaking, if that's possible with the way it's set up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doubt you'd get much joy from raising a bug, last i looked (some time ago) the system uses a php function to parse the relative dates and it is that which is failing. --pgk 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the unlikely case that the gory details are useful for somebody: the PHP code for the block form is at [123] and calls strtotime(). The manpage claims that the date syntax is identical to the tar syntax (for which see [124]) and lies. (Otherwise, it would be possible to specify ‘1 fortnight’…) The actual grammar is here. The rules that were used in the above example are timetiny12 (e. g. ‘1:13’ or ‘12.05’) and relative (e. g. ‘3 weeks’). The important thing to remember here is that for specifications like ‘2 days’ or ‘1 year’, the number is expected to be a (possibly signed) integer and the function (which is technically a lexer, not a parser) is no ELIZA, so don’t expect it to understand jokes. Hope this helps. —xyzzy_n 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note: it does accept 1 fortnight. ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow managed to miss those lines. It even does forthnights ago… —xyzzy_n 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the title of this section, I'll be more impressed if they implement decimal seconds, decimal minutes, and decimal hours. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest User:JB196 Sock accounts

GaryGoingggg has gone back to standard User:JB196 behaviour, inserting links to articles JB196 has written [[125]] as well as nominating wrestling articles for AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Scaia‎. Note: The account is only a few days old, which is a strong indicator of trying to get around JB's ban.

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196‎ for his full history.

Also user:Machodawg is inserting JB196 links in articles as well [[126]]

(Sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a very obvious JB196 sock, and he's already threatening to evade any block that may be imposed. [127] One Night In Hackney 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is comforting to know that you must stoop to the level of personally attacking new users and wrongly accusing new users of sockpuppeting because you dont want a verifiable source (which they added) to remain in a article. theres no threat on my part--and the only personal attacks have came from you.

GaryGoingggg 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "verifiable source" is largely unverifiable original research carried out by JB196, a link to which has been inserted on a constant basis by JB196 and all his socks. The claim of a personal attack refers to me stating Common sense says that screenshots can easily be doctored or manipulated, so they are not reliable, which is clearly not a personal attack. The sooner this disruptive editor is blocked the better. One Night In Hackney 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

antivandalbot error report

Richard Branson's page was edited for the 2nd time today, text is full of attention-seeking vandalism. Should consider closing this page's editing.

4.21.129.195 five instances of vandalism in one day

I've had to revert Cameron Indoor Stadium repeatedly today because user 4.21.129.195, who seems to be a serial vandal[128], keeps inserting snide references to Saturday's game where Virginia Tech beat Duke. I know the Hokies are excited, but this isn't the place for it, and his(?) talk page indicates that he's been blocked before for vandalism. Perhaps a stronger sanction is needed here? 1995hoo 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h. In the future you can take this to WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The vandalism policies seemed to point here. I'll bookmark the other. Appreciate the quick help. While I was requesting the block, he edited the ARTICLE to tell me that their win was a milestone. SIGH..... 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks to prevent vandalism to WP:ANI

Just thought I'd inform everyone that I've placed a rangeblock on 67.34.0.0/16 to prevent vandalism to WP:ANI. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had to block 68.223.0.0/16 too. This is tiresome. I really wonder why people seem to spend so much time trying to ruin Wikipedia. I do hope one day they'll try to use Wikipedia as a source and find their article vandalised. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a short (4 hours or so) Semi-Protection to discourage the IP addresses from continuing their actions? SirFozzie 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A prudent suggestion, but this has been going on for over 24 hours now, I had to place rangeblocks last night too. I don't think it'd work unless it was maintained for some time... I don't think we're quite at that stage of vandalism yet. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And now 68.211.0.0/16. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranges blocked for 24 hours to prevent vandalism here

• 67.34.0.0/16
• 68.223.0.0/16
• 68.211.0.0/16

129.33.49.251

Someone from the IP address 129.33.49.251 repeatedly adds the following notice to Patriarch Alexius II and doesn't provide references to his/her statements:

It is necessary, however, to mention that both of these individuals are very politicized liberal figures in Russia (Gleb Yakunin being a defrocked priest in view of his political activity, forbidden for Orthodox clergy, and Evgenia Albats being a prominent critic of all things that are traditionally Russian.) Therefore, there is no credibility to their "reports" as they are not independent observers but in fact are quite strongly agitated ideologically against Russia and, unfortunately, the Orthodox Church.

Given these facts, it is safe to conclude that there is no credible evidence to back up this allegation.

Note: This is a gentle reminder to Wikipedia that this article in its present form contains material slanderous without any proof of a public and very respected persona. It is advised that Wikipedia remove the "Controversy" piece altogether as being without any proof, merit or verifiability (it thus goes against Wikipedia's own guidelines). Wikipedia is gently but firmly reminded that any unproven negative statement about a public persona is slanderous and that the legal definition for this sort of posting is slander. Wikipedia is encouraged to use the Russian version of the article about Patriarch Alexy II as a template for accurate and non-slanderous information.

It seems to go against Wikipedia policy. As (s)he added this twice and the talk page of this user indicates that (s)he used to vandalize Wikipedia earlier, I would like to ask you to block the address once again.Colchicum 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:X9

A new user recently moved Template:X9 into the mainspace and created an article on top of it. Does this go on WP:RM or should this be reported here? I'm unable to move it back as someone edited the redirect after the page move. --- RockMFR 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the correct location. Naconkantari 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is now sprotected

I really didn't want to do it but I was struggling to keep up with reverting the vandalism, meaning that nobody else could get an edit in edgeways. Lets leave this long enough for the vandal to stop and then unsprotect. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not long ago WP:DEFCON was set to the second-highest level of vandalism, suggesting a vandalbot or other similiar mass-vandalism tool was in action. Yuser31415 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with adding the text, "in the interim, please feel free to contact an administrator directly" or words to that effect? --BigDT 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...either that, or use the talk page...Guettarda 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the text. I don't know that asking for messages to be posted on the talk page is a great idea, but I won't yell/scream too loudly if someone disagrees and changes it. Really, though, you could contact any established user ... anyone can copy/paste your message here for you. --BigDT 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Cplot has stashed accounts sitting around waiting to disrupt, since he was just able to vandalize this page again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go new account patrolling sometime and bash anything that follows his username pattern with {{username}} --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Raspor

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters

JP is back with new IP socks. The Vladimir Lenin article's history page for the last few days includes them, and I think his sock page is up to date. He's editing/abusing other articles as well. The edits (primarily deletions) are disruptive as is his habit of reverting. It looks like he's trying to whitewash Soviet history using Soviet sources and removing qualified academic sources. At any rate, JP has long since been banned for this sort of behavior, but he persists with socks. An admin on the vandalism page has referred the matter here. The IP sock du jour is 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with 3RR and some talk page blanking. Rklawton 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The IPs are similar to those of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, including the above, 207.151.38.178 which was blocked yesterday for 3RR, and 68.126.253.190 which was also blocked yesterday.Ultramarine 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Vladimir Lenin. Khoikhoi 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late, he's dead. OK, just kidding. What about the other article this sock is editing? Rklawton 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One of very few posts lately that have made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. —bbatsell ¿? 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm lenin towards support for this. Full marx to Khoikoi. Stalin work, that man. The guy wants trouble? So viet. Uss'r quite happy to block 'im, and if he gets bolshie we'll krusch evry sockpuppet we find. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We will bury him, figuratively speaking, of course. - Merzbow 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Genius. This thread almost made all of JP's hassles worth it. Kudos all around! --C33 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

Trolling or not, should someone remove this edit from the history? Fan-1967 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That needs to go to Request for Oversight. I have emailed them. --Edokter (Talk) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really important enough for oversight IMO, it was just an e-mail address. I've removed it and the other time it happened from the history. —bbatsell ¿? 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Already gone. Looks like someone else reported it at WP:AIV and it was handled. Fan-1967 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Burlington, Ontario

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some guy with the IPs: User:209.250.162.237 User:209.250.163.105, etc is vandalising the article. I am hoping that the Wikipedia admins can help me, if that is possible. FellowWikipedian 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More (seemingly) from blocked user User:BryanFromPalatine

It would appear that he has not given up sockpuppeting his way around blocks. BenBurch 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! --BenBurch 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Abusive subject header, seeking removal

User:Smashingworth behaving abusively: user created a top-level section header titled "Joie's Record of Editing Hypocrisy Reveals True Motives for Crashing This Page" at Talk:Lavenski_Smith. I would like to see the tabloid-style header removed or at least renamed. Please advise. Sorry if this is incorrectly placed. 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the heading per WP:RTP as a simple refactoring for brevity and to promote discussion rather than attacks. Please note that this is not an indication that I agree with either side in this dispute, but I trust discussion will prove more productive without inflammatory content such as that. —bbatsell ¿? 23:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kai bohrmann

This appears to be a repost of an article that was deleted from the German Wikipedia. I'm not a sysop over there (und mein Deutsch ist ein bisschen schwach), so I can't attest to the circumstances. According to the author, Kai bohrmann (talk · contribs), the public reason was for being an "agitation article." This article is now sitting in Kai bohrmann's userspace, still in German, either to be translated or sent back to de. Either way, I'm not very happy about the present situation, but as the speedy deletion is contested, I'm coming here for a second opinion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SEIFE. Deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Patchbook

I request that action (IMO a block preferably) be taken with this user. He has an ever growing list of improper behaviour which began with the continuous removal of maintenance tags from Police memorabilia collecting, for which he was warned more than once. Then in reply to edits to his (the one mentioned above) article, seemingly unable to accept that articles one writes are edited by other users, began personal attacks and threats on User:Kintetsubuffalo and myself User:SGGH, for which he was again warned. However, these warnings have had no effect, and User:Kintetsubuffalo has contacted Jimbo Wales himself requesting assistance, and I myself am here to request action. In addition to the problems already mentioned, User:Patchbook recently edited the Article Watch list of the Law Enforcement wikiproject, which he had was in no place to edit, and he had no reason so. I view his edits there, in a place used only by the "admin staff" (so to speak) of the wikiproject, to be vandalism in order to further his own argument. I kindly request advice and/or action in this matter, and would request that such advice is given to User:Kintetsubuffalo as well, as he had borne the brunt of Patchbook's attacks. Many thanks, SGGH 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the user in question has edited as User:208.127.49.118 and as User:Patchbook. As Patchbook, he left what could be considered a death threat [136] on User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. I left npa3 on the user's talkpage after this message and he has not edited as that username since then ... although he has been a disruption as the IP address as SGGH pointed out. --BigDT 00:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Art Dominique (talk · contribs) socks

These are pretty clearly socks of banned user Art Dominique. Could not be checkusered for technical reasons. Recommend reviewing them and blocking if found to be socks.

• Evelina Carlson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Swedish girl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Historical truth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thanks, researchers ! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Notable world figures (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Use the shower curtain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• No fear, no remorse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks! TheQuandry 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that they are socks. All blocked Alex Bakharev 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possible WP:JARLAXLE sock

Imapoed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is probably, but not certainly, another WP:JARLAXLE sockpuppet. (User's very first edit was to undo a recent edit of mine, followed by a complaint on my talk page, followed by several more reversions of my edits. User's other edits seem to be legitimate vandalism reversion.) I'm reporting this here because I'm going to bed and thus won't be able to monitor the user. Someone else should check occasionally to make sure the user is (or is not) harmless. —Psychonaut 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism from dynamic IP

The article Game rip (audio) has been frequently vandalized by an anonymous user with a dynamic IP since its creation, as you can see from the history [137]. Recently, their vandalism attempts have involved the repeated insertion of a link to an apparently virus-infected file, which they are trying to pass off as a legitimate program. Since their IP is different every time they edit the page, there isn't anything I can do besides just reverting their edits. Any ideas? WarpstarRider 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, adding to my watchlist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have semiprotected the article. Next time request protection/semiprotection on WP:RPP Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1 annon vandalism a day isn't realy a good reason to protect it. Mine if I unprotect? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New User's Username

Under the naming conventions of Wikipedia, is Mrs.chokesondick (talk · contribs) an appropriate user name? I'd like to issue a request to change it to the user but first would like community advice. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

File it at WP:RFC/NAME

On one hand it's a name of a South Park character. On the other, not everybody watches South Park... file away in the correct place, and see what happens :) Crimsone 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another user (and Crimsone beat me to the punch about the South Park reference). I still think whoever chose that name needs to pick another one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the name aloud, people. It's a South Park character with an intentionally offensive name, and should always be blocked. Grandmasterka 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:École Polytechnique massacre

I'm about ready to pack it in over this one. I've become involved as an editor, so my admin tools are no help. I filed an Rfc here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp but the user in question has refused to participate. I'm totally at a loss. The most recent thread in question (there are lots) is here Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre#Challenge_for_Sue. I have not used my admin tools in this dispute, but I'll accept criticism from any admin about my tone, or other behaviour. Mostly, level-headed help is needed, from any quarter. I originally got involved to try and help solve the dispute, but I'm forced to admit failure at that. Any input or advice is welcome. Cheers. Dina 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried mediation? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, it doesn't merit mediation -- it isn't a dispute between two users, but a dispute between one user, and every other user that visits the article or talk page. However, the user in question did request mediation here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre as well as contacting User:Cowman109 personally: here. Some of the accusations are certainly toeing the line of personal attacks [138] but I feel powerless to do anything about it since I've edited the article. Dina 02:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrative intervention needed

New user Baristarim seems to believe talkpages are items that are, in his words, "owned." He posted several complaints on my talkpage and a WP:3RR warning after I reverted, one time, his removal of categories from two pages. He is now claiming that I am not allowed to remove his rude statements from my talkpage because the WP:3RR warning was "legitimate." Would an administrator please explain to him how talkpages work? Thanks, KazakhPol 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. Yuser31415 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

He openly admits to posting the WP:3RR warning after one reversion[139] on the grounds that my "tone" implied I would violate the policy. If you look at the history of my talkpage you will see he accuses me of vandalism when I revert his incivil comments. KazakhPol 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User states that user talkpages are owned, and states that Kazakhstan "does not matter."[140] KazakhPol 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not fall for this trap. I gave him 3RR warnings [141] and he insists on removing them from his talk page saying that " I can remove any comment you post on my talkpage and I do not have to state why". I gave him a 3RR warning because I was sure that he would go all the way to 3RR, and two minutes after my warning he did his second revert and fifteen minutes later his third. He was adding an irrelevant cat to certain articles, then I reverted him, then I noticed that he had created a "Terrorism in Kazakhstan" template that I TfDed. I already notified an administrator about this [142].

And I am not a new user. I have been here longer than this user has, and have much more edits. In fact, I would like to request intervention on my part. He is insisting that I am being uncivil, and accusing me of being a new user, being ignorant of Wiki policies etc (see my talk page). He is insisting on removing my warnings and posts from his talk page [143] [144] [145] [146] [147], by saying that I am breaking WP:OWN, but is breaking the same rule himself by saying "I can remove any comment I please from my talk page" [148]. If anyone finds any comment that breaks WP:CIVIL, I have nothing more to say, all my posts were civil, decent and standard. This user also posted messages at the talk pages of numerous users, practically inviting them for edit warring on concerned articles [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] in the space of a couple of minutes.Baristarim 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that this user has demonstrated he/she does not understand a single Wikipedia policy, could someone either give him a stern warning or block him so he gets the point? I am trying to work and he is becoming a nuisance. KazakhPol 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, big deal. You're both reasonably experienced users and you should both know better than this. Stay away from each other, okay? You've both made your points. Yuser31415 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Would KazakhPol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please stop harassing Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [164]? Thanks. Yuser31415 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely right. After the reverts, I only notified one admin so that he can take a look, but I didn't go to ANI by claiming that "new user" was doing this or that. If possible, I would still like clarification on if he can revert 3RR warnings by saying that "I can remove anything that I want from my talk page". He posted msgs to 14 users practically inviting them for edit-warring. However, I didn't think that ANI was the right place for this in the first place. Cheers! Baristarim 04:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, no need for now. Baristarim 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When users ask to be "banned"

What should be done when a user (Phillers (talk · contribs), in this case) asks to be "banned," presumably a synonym for "block," as his first edit? (Warning:The font he used is huge, so you might wanna view it with popups instead of clicking.) His second and third edits have been petty vandalism. I've been debating whether to welcome him (which may be useless - this is probably not his first interaction with Wikipedia, based on his knowledge of formatting and site layout), add him at WP:AIV, or add a section here. I recall users being blocked indef at their request, one blocked indef at their request and then unblocked involuntarily, and at least one completely ignored. Any other opinions on the situation? Oh, and forgive me if this has been discussed before. Picaroon 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You block the account because they are obviously not here to contribute to the project and only here to disrupt it to make a point. I've blanked his user page, and his contributions are disruptive and not done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IP inserting misinformation

72.137.114.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is has repeatedly changed legitimate information in pages. Randomly picked examples include [165], [166], [167], and [168]. Could some admin rollback all of his or her changes quickly? Cheers. Yuser31415 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with watching over an article

Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppeteer of a number of different accounts used to edit Canadian political articles (see his request for checkuser here). I'm not knowledgeable in Canadian politics, but it does appear that he is removing sourced material that he perceives to be negative towards right-wing politicians. He previously used sockpuppets to attempt to influence an AfD, and now is using them to game WP:3RR on Erik Bornmann (maybe other articles, I'm not sure). I need some help reviewing all of this user's actions (you can see the full list of sockpuppets on the RFCU I linked above). Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for page semi-protection concerning this was denied and deferred here. Carson 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article (I have no idea why it needed to be deferred), and I have blocked all Rascalpatrol's sockpuppets, as they are single purpose throwaway accounts created solely for the purposes of disrupting articles (and the AFD on Erik Bornmann, which he tried to have deleted, see the thread further up the page). I have left Rascalpatrol (talk · contribs) unblocked for now, but if he continues to use socks in a disruptive manner, I see no reason why he should not be blocked, also. Proto::► 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review a block

I just indefblocked Sillysailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for page move vandalism which took me some time to unravel. As I did this block technically out of process (i.e. no warnings, and some good-faith edits in the past, though mixed with vandalism), I invite others to comment and either change the length of the block themselves, or ask me to do so (I will if there is consensus).

And, while you're at it, could someone please review this to make sure I didn't miss any of this user's havoc? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Valid block. Naconkantari 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a random sampling of his edits (dating back to the beginning and middle of '06) and almost all of it was sneaky vandalism. Should have been blocked a long time ago. No problems here. —bbatsell ¿? 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got all the moves cleaned up too. —bbatsell ¿? 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a vandalism-only account in the vein of Willy on Wheels, except not as funny. Hbdragon88 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy would be disappointed with the lack of wit shown by the impersonator. Valid block. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Fann Wong by sockpuppets

When checking on Fann Wong, I noticed that Wenfangs (talk · contribs) added nonsensical tags to Fann Wong (such as sprotected, unreferenced and inappropriate tone tags) when the article is completely referenced and has recently obtained GA status. I've warned the user on his/her talk page but the user has accused me of vandalising another article, Zoe Tay. When I checked Zoe Tay, I noticed that a user with a similar nickname Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a returning vandal. The tumultous edit war in Zoe Tay by sockpuppets resulted in it being sprotected. It seems that both Wenfangs (talk · contribs) and Wenfangfan (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets engaging in vandalism on both the Zoe Tay and Fann Wong articles. In any case, these usernames should be blocked for violating Wikipedia's naming policy (celebrity names - Fann Wong's Chinese name is Wenfang, which probably explains the choice of nickname). Voda voda 04:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given a username block to Wenfangs (talk · contribs). This matter was also raised on my talk page by someone who believes this user is the most recent sock of someone Zoe blocked. Can you clarify why you feel Wenfangfan is also a username violation, doesn't the "fan" part make it different enough? Sorry, I don't mean to be ignorant but I really don't know anything about Chinese names. :) Cheers, Sarah 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I see that second account was blocked a few days ago. Sorry about that. Sarah 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fann Wong's full Chinese name is Fan Wenfang, and Wenfangfan can be taken as too similar to her Chinese name for comfort, even if the first name here (Wenfang) precedes the last name (Fan) - as compared to Chinese custom where the last name (Fan) precedes the first name (Wenfang). Alternatively, you could see Wenfangfan as a username coined in spite; for despite calling himself/herself a fan of Fann Wong, (ie. 'fan' refers to supporter and not the last name of the actress), the user has merely tagged on nonsensical tags to the article instead of improving it. I've just examined the Zoe Tay edit conflict and Wenfangs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page and I think it's quite obvious that it's definitely the same person stirring up nonsense in Fann Wong. Voda voda 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Madonna Vandalism

User 87.196.44.177 unexplainably removed the three first links of the Madonna criticism section.

Despite her undeniable fame , success , iconic and superstar status and groundbreaking career achievements , it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They wrote: Despite her success, it is noticeable that since the beginning of her career, Madonna has been the target of constant criticism, being always far away from any possible type of unanimity. Reviews about her body of work have generally been mixed and many music critics have constantly put her artistry in doubt.

They also completely removed GTBacchus' edit we all agreed on.

However, some critics do see Madonna as a talented vocalist and songwriter. Madonna also received good reviews for her "Love Don't Live Here Anymore," cover on which her performance was described as a "heartfelt vocal". Her vocals on Live To Tell were considered her best at the time by some, and the song's lyrics have been described as "poignant": "A man call tell a thousand lies. I've learned my lesson well. Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned. 'Til then it will burn inside of me."

I gave them a warning. It's vandalism since they removed the three first links without any reason. They did not disagree on the content "Despite her success...", but on the links only...

Israell 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SPA User:Dhg247 vandalism

Dhg247 (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account) recently wrote an essay in article space where the controversial Electric universe (concept) was recently deleted as a result of AfD. The account (as well as the article page) may be worth keeping an eye on for the near future for potential recreation, NPOV, or vandalism reasons. ju66l3r 07:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This comment was removed (accidentally?), likely as a result of an edit conflict improperly resolved by the above editor. I'm replacing it. ju66l3r 07:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Electric universe (concept) page creation vandalism has stood for about 6 hours now with 2 db tags on it. It would be good to WP:DENY the creator (a single purpose account, likely sockpuppet) their attention for rallying the troops to recreate the original article that failed numerous policies and resulted in a deletion by AfD. Can someone help out here? Thanks. ju66l3r 11:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Embryoglio - disruption

Embryoglio (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of someone, being somewhat trollish and disruptive, but done with enough skill, it's difficult to deal with.

See threads in Talk:Breast, Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this board to report Armadillo, as well his allies Atomaton and others, but I see that Armadillo has already made an entry of me here. Apparently Armadillo believes that if oneself is the first person to report the dispute, then people will think that oneself is in the right, even when the evidence shows otherwise. It doesn't work like that, Armadillo... or at least I hope it doesn't.

I have extensively catalogged many of the policy violations of User:Atomaton in an entry that I made to this board. That entry was disruptively deleted by the admin User:Ryulong, who, not surprisingly, is known to have a long history of disrupting wikipedia. Look at the edit history of this page to read the deleted entry.

In addition to Armadillo's above lie (which can be seen to be a lie simply by following the links that he/she has provided), he has also made uncivil false accusations and threats against me on the pages that he so conveniently linked to.

Embryoglio 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Upset user, or immaturity

This user seems a bit upset over the Gundam deletion happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja. Normally I wouldn't care that he decided to conduct vote-stacking and personal attacking at the same time, but he also vandalized Doug Bell's page. Can someone tell this guy to get a grip? or at least not vandalize? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for him. [169] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Notifying the Wikiproject that some of their articles are AfD-ed is NOT votestacking, this should be done as common courtesy.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem with notifying the project in a neutral way, but this one had a personal attack and asked specifically to keep the articles, which are both things that shouldn't be done... Fram 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the person who nominated the article for deletion should have taken the step to notify the WP, which wasn't done. Yzak's understandably angry, since (again, imo) he feels that the Gundam articles are being singled out. He overreacted, fine, but calling him immature, calling for the disbandment of the Project, and revert warring on the Project page is taking it too far. Kyaa the Catlord 10:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he did actually contact the Wikiproject, or one did.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator of the OTHER AfD did. Not the one for the one that Yzak is going off over. Kyaa the Catlord 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone needs a bit of WP:AGF right now; or we'll have some pot, kettle, etc. Elaragirl is simply suggesting that the greater community look into the work of WP:GUNDAM and how they create articles that their area of expertise covers, which is exactly what the two AFDs are looking into.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that people should remember that a lot of the Gundam articles were created long before the Wikiproject was founded. Picking on the Project cause of articles that were created before it was created is low.... Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but it also up to WikiProjects to clean up existing articles as well as creating new ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we should delete WP: Fiction for having thousands of articles that violate WP:WAF first. Seriously, Wikipedia is not our job, we don't get paid to do this, we only have limitted amounts of time to spend cleaning up the mess. If you have clean up concerns, AfD is not the proper step. Kyaa the Catlord 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICTION is a guideline for articles, WP:GUNDAM is a group of people who want to work on Gundam articles. The articles are up for deletion because they are unsourced and full of unverifiable information with no assertion of importance within the metaseries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the literary wikiprojects are then. There are THOUSANDS of articles labelled for problems with WAF, compared to the few articles that WP:GUNDAM have really been involved with... Seriously, calling for the removal of the project is uncalled for and "attack"ish. Kyaa the Catlord 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was uncalled for, yes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps editors like Elaragirl could tone down their comments on AfDs. It's not necessary to call the article "ridiculous", a "pile of nonsense", or to say that all the articles should be "burnt with fire". Faced with that sort of language, those who have obviously put in a lot of work on the articles might understandably get a little heated themselves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of the Gundam project members are not helping their case by calling me a troll, reverting the removal of personal attacks under the edit summary 'RV Vandalism', and then threatening me with 3RR for removing them again (which is a total of 1R). Although now I've removed them again. Proto::►

Just for clarity, I called your actions (joining into a revert war on the page) "borderline trollish". Your actions, not you. And if you do break 3RR, you should be reported for 3RR. That's common sense. Kyaa the Catlord 10:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am my actions - that's all we have to go on when relating to our fellow users here. And I would humbly suggest removing personal attacks is not a revert of the kind covered by 3RR. Proto::► 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're overreacting then. And perhaps gaming the system. Kicking someone when he's down is poor form, chap. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, removing personal attacks is not protected behaviour from 3RR. See: [170]. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. Reinserting them is, however, not protected behaviour in WP:NPA. Proto::► 11:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, Yzak's being a naughty boy. Happy now? I thought we all agreed on that already. My problem was that you were encouraging and goading him, so I asked you to stop. Then again, maybe the Gundam kids have a point when they feel they're being harrassed and singled out by Wikipedia at large.... Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More Madonna Vandalism

The same user -87.196.44.177- now deleted Madonna's main picture... Please take action. They got a warning from me and two other user and went ahead and deleted Madonnas's picture. I gave them another warning.

Israell 10:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A temporary ban for 124.5.223.207, please

This user has been busy reverting the edits made by OrphanBot and reinserting unsafe images in to Wikipedia articles [171]. Despite repeated warnings from me [172][173], this activity is still continuing [174][175]. Please put a stop to it. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 12:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)