Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Stalking by User:Friday

I feel Im being stalked by Friday. He turns up almost everywhere I go now. Can anything be done about this as I feel threatenede by his constant attention to my every move. I have asked him to stop it a few times [1] but he just carries on.

[2] [3] [4] [5] To which I replied with this trying to warn him off:[6] He then deleted one of my comments on a talk page. here:[7] More diffs to follow as I find them --Light current 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, second door on your left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• You give no actual evidence of stalking, just of two articles that apparently both of you have edited. Contribs logs are public for good reason, and even if he had looked through your contribs (which is not a given; you'd be amazed at the amount of stuff some people have on their watchlist) that isn't necessarily bad. For instance, in the Jester case, he appears to remove a non-standard header, in that most articles don't start with a "description" header; is that problematic? Is that an attempt to improveme of the encyclopedia, or an action made solely to annoy you? WP:FAITH suggests the former. >Radiant< 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hes following me alright. ill prove it. Since I put the hdg in, its obviosly to annoy me --Light current 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that depends. It is apparent that his removal of the heading did annoy you. However, it is also apparent that we do not in general employ such "description" headers. So it would appear that the intent was to bring the page in line with our standards. >Radiant< 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But why should he suddenly jump onto the Jester page like that? I did because someone accused me of acting like a court jester and I just wanted to get the right defn. I also tried to tidy the article whilst I was threr. Why did Friday then go to that page and revert my edit? And why has he suddenly become interested in Valve audio amplifiers?--Light current 12:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He reverted your edit because it took out the lead of the article. I would have done the same. Trebor 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why did he follow me there if not just to stalk?--Light current 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Harassment:

Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

Just following you isn't stalking. --Onorem 13:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But he is harrasing me. Has been for months. Ive tried to ingnore him becuase if I say anything , he blocks me>I have had to give up my important word on Audio amplifier pages becuase he has followed me there and started to criticise my posts.--Light current 13:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That last diff you provided also shows an uncivil comment you made. While I don't think removing comments from talk is correct, I think you shouldn't be making uncivil comments in the first place. Jeffpw 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Admitted. But what has this to do with the current stalking problem?

He's hardly the only person who has blocked you. He most likely looked over your contribution log, saw a change that was contrary to style guidelines and reverted. That is not stalking, nor is it disruptive. Trebor 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then what about his sudden appearnce on trhe Valve audio amplifier talk page?--Light current 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain how his comments there are disruptive. They look pretty reasonable to me. The fact that he may have got there through your contribution log isn't relevant if he isn't doing anything unreasonable while there. Trebor 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hes starting to cause trouble by interefering in a long running discussion between me and another difficult editor Tubnutdave. Ive given up oin those pages now as its just to stressful to deal with 2 awkward customes. So he has effectively disrupted the progreess on all those articles. --Light current 13:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can't see any evidence of interfering. If you want to give up on them, that's your choice. Trebor 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So you dont give a shit about anyone else causing actual disruption when Im accused of it almos frigging daily??--Light current 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me how is he is being disruptive. Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps Friday is attempting to resolve the problems between you and this Tubnutdave? If there is an underlying content dispute there, you could request a third opinion or comments at any time. >Radiant< 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but youve got to ask yourself why has he suddenly taken an interest here when the situation was under control, and I had asked another Admin to advise me on proper action I should take on these pages.

I'm sorry but you can't ban editors you dislike from editing certain pages. Unless he's doing something wrong, then what do you want to be done? Trebor 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

People (like me) have been blocked for much less then Friday is doing. Im not asking for that. I would like Friday to be advised to stop folowing me around and harrasssing me . Thats all! --Light current 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not harrassment. Proto::► 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why so bold a statement?--Light current 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Watching the contributions of a disruptive editor is not stalking or harrassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

watching is not. But commenting IS--Light current 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. If an editor is disruptive (which you often are) then it's perfectly legitimate. You could, of course, stop being disruptive and watch the problem solve itself... Guy (Help!) 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How am I disruptive within the WP defn?--Light current 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for one, you make ungrounded accusations of stalking and harassment. >Radiant< 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Circular argument!--Light current 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if you can show these accusations are legitimate. An editor editing a few of the same pages as you isn't stalking or harassment. Trebor 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. Proto::► 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Were all dicks. It takes one to know one!-Light current 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How old are you? Trebor 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If thats not an impertinent Q, Im as old as you want me to be!--Light current 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?

I'm actually at a loss as to what to do about Light current. He's obviously a very intelligent person, but his inability – feigned or genuine – to respond to any sort of criticism in a productive way is poisoning his ability to participate in Wikipedia.

Gentle suggestions, polite reminders, and detailed explanations of why his behaviour is problematic have all failed, repeatedly. His response to any such advice is almost always rudeness (rm less than useless post, rm noise) often with a dash of I-dare-you-to-block-me-so-I-can-cry-admin-abuse-again thrown in for good measure: "Gonna block me again?" "Why so impatient my furry friend?".

See also this thread on SCZenz's talk page, where (until SCZenz erased the insults and trolling) Light current was attempting to goad several admins into either another pointless argument or outright blocking by accusing us of 'fuzzy thinking and of course cowardice' for ignoring his taunts.

A word of caution; Light current takes a very active hand in the maintenance of User talk:Light current (check out that history tab) and it may be rather difficult to follow the conversations there. While he does not alter anyone's signed remarks, he does freely rearrange comments and delete remarks that he doesn't like. While it is probably permissible for him to do so, it may give the casual reader a somewhat skewed perspective of what conversation actually took place.

So, how do we get LC back on the straight and narrow? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't do anything. The ball is in LC's court. At some point, and probably soon, LC will run out of community patience and this will no longer be an issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Light Current twice deleted this thread, by the way. Thatcher131 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean ADMINS will run out of patience? I didnyt know that Admins represented the whole community; comprising as they do only about 0.1% of it!--Light current 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying there are other users who would think differently? I would love to hear from them. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want a non-admin view, I would say that judging by that block log it really is only a matter of time. Anyone with a block history like that needs to have a very serious rethink of their conduct here. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and who is the cuase of the long block log. Not me, but erroeous Admins who dont know the blocking policy!--Light current 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's your problem right there: anyone who has attracted as much criticism and comment as you have and still believes that the problem is other people is headed for trouble. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You wouldnt be an A****n by any chance would you?--Light current 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that so many admins were wrong about you so many times, is it even a little possible that you may have earned a few of those blocks? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes about two. Where I was very offensive to some editors. All the others have been setups and well outside blocking policy.--Light current 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since persuasion hasn't worked, the remaining option is coercion. Various forms of coercion are available, such as civility parole, revert parole and general probation. They could conceivably be applied by community (admin) consensus, but I'm sure Light Current would not respect that. So that leaves us with arbitration, which can apply those coercive remedies. Arbitration would also give Light Current a chance to contest the blocks he thinks were inappropriate. I'm not sure that the case wouldn't turn into a train wreck, but I don't see the (admin) community being able to apply any useful remedies, short of a permanent ban, which seems much too drastic at this point. Thatcher131 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some unbiased non admin comment here please?--Light current 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's one: Light Current, you are acting like a classic paranoid conspiracy theorist. It will be very difficult for you to get much real sympathy as long as you continue to act this way. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested, are you suggesting that all admins are biased against you? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Im sure not all are. Only the ones whove blocked me plus SCZ (who hasnt yet -I dont think so anyway)Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, you said just a few lines up that two of the blocks were justified. So are the admins who justifiably blocked you biased against you?? Trebor 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The situation is clear-cut, Thatcher. Whatever we decide to do, including community sanctions, we should just do rather than using up ArbCom's time. -- SCZenz 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And what trumped up charge are you going to use this time?Light current 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you have enough community support for an escalating series of blocks to enforce a civility parole or probation, LC still has the option of appealing to arbcom. Something tells me that he won't meekly accept the judgement of the "community" here, so it will end up there one way or the other. Thatcher131 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If Light current appeals to ArbCom, that is fine; they will take up the case if they think it's worth their time, or let the community's decision stand if it looks ok to them. I'd rather let the arbitrators judge what they should pursue than use them as a crutch for things we can handle ourselves. -- SCZenz 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that admin comments are biased, LC; that in itself is an assumption of bad faith. Ok, here's a non-admin observation. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since November 6, when you dumped an off-topic debate onto Talk:Saddam Hussein. I reverted it; you reinstated it. I went to your talk page to explain to you why I was deleting it. Your response was aggressively argumentative. I've been looking in on your talk page from time to time since then, and I'm at a loss to understand the situation. It literally does not seem to ever occur to you that you might be wrong and that someone else might have a valid point. What I see here is a textbook case of exhausting the community's patience. It might help you to voluntarily take yourself away from Wikipedia for a week or two to get some perspective. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean ;

Please read the RD rules. Discuusion should be moved to the approprate page. is aggressively argumentaive? Howzat?--Light current 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole thread, please, and don't think of this as a debate in which you are trying to score points. Think of it as an adult conversation in which the community is trying to show you how you are repeatedly going wrong. A few points to consider about that particular situation: What makes you think that everyone on Wikipedia knows what "RD" means? And what made you so utterly sure of your position that you continued to argue it after I removed the thread dump twice, then repeatedly explained to you that off-topic talk page postings could and should be deleted? You were so focused on your perspective (moving a thread from the reference desk) that you found it literally impossible to consider that the person you were talking to might have a valid point. It still does not seem to occur to you. Even now, you appear to be trying to score debating points, as opposed to considering what I'm telling you with an open mind. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another non-admin opinion here: I agree with Jim Douglas above. From my observations (reading here and other boards, as well as watching the reference desk debates), it seems that LC obviously perceives a conflict with a number of admins sparked from the reference desk concerns, and when challenged on those conflicts immediately goes on the defensive. I personally find his responses to many of the comments that people make regarding his actions to be rather unnecessarily argumentative, even when people are trying to offer positive assistance, and would agree that he could do well to take some time and think about the situation before continuing in that fashion. Barring that, arbitration may be the next necessary step to clear this up. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

THe 'solution' is simple. People back off! I back off. We all live happily ever after!--Light current 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OTOH maybe we need something that has been suggested before: an RfC. I wasnt keen on it before, but I think it may give a broader picture of feelings pro and anti. So if anyone wants to start one, be my guest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs) 11:58, February 2, 2007

I would hope an RFC would be unnecessary, but you are able to open one on yourself if you so choose, Light current. In fact it would be a sign of good faith in the community's ability to police itself if you did so, since you seem to believe that the administrators are biased against you. I believe that you are intelligent enough to see that what you are doing is at times disruptive and rules lawyering without an RFC, but it's up to you (or some other user) to take that step if necessary. -- nae'blis 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My non admin opionion is that for some of the blocks I would not have blocked as soon. However, given the repeating cycles of bahviour the blocks were probably inevitable. No one action leads to these blocks but rather a persistent nipping at the heels. Such behaviour becomes less and less tolerable as time marches on. It is certainly disruptive as seen by the reams of discussion devoted to general behavior on the ref desk (admittedly not all due to LC). LC is always looking for loop holes in the rules. The problem is that in wikipedia the rules are interpreted but not necessarily literally. This seems to be a lesson that LC refuses to learn. Another lesson that seems to not sink in is that persisient niggling is a culmulative offense. The slate is not clean after each block but rather patterns of editing are acted on to prevent further disruption. In LC's case the patterns are so clear that he is no longer has the benefit of the doubt given to other editors. Yet, he seems to think he should be treated as a newbie for each new interaction despite his huge block log and masses of experience here it wikipedia (>30,000 edits). To say that LC does not adapt to the wikipedia environment would be an understatement. David D. (Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open a frigging RfC on me. I demand it! Then ALL the shit can be brought into view! ¬Light current 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to wait until your shoulder had healed? David D. (Talk) 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in pain yes having just fallen out of the chair onto my bad arm. But I think its important to persue the convo here. BTW Im impressed with your neutrality, lack of bias, and maturity so I would like to nominate you for Admin If you dont mind! We need more of your sort in admin positions!--Light current 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Community Ban for User:Light current?

Now I haven't had the pleasure with this gentleman yet (denied unblock once, I think), but after looking at that block log, and finding this wish for another user to die on the first glance at his contributions, my only question is: why are we still wasting time here and not ban him for good? (I've issued an one week block for that attack, incidentally; feel free to shorten or lengthen it if deemed necessary). Sandstein 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ban him for good. Arbcom is not needed for obvious cases like this. WAS 4.250 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded (or third-ed). User's behavior seems to be an ongoing problem and a major time-sink, with no light (no pun intended) at the end of the tunnel. Turn the page. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed (or seconded again, if one prefers). No need to waste ArbCom time, and an RfC would just be treading water. If Light wants to help us build an encyclopedia, it would probably be better to do so with a fresh start and without all this behind them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I completely agree - he has exhausted the community's patience. CharonX/talk 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sixthed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LC's having a bit of a tantrum on his user talk page about a lot of this. probably needs a good community supported cool off, if not more. ThuranX 05:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page, to prevent him from issuing a third unblock request after two were denied and to stop him from getting into even more trouble for incivil edits. Feel free to undo if you believe the tantrum is over. Sandstein 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus here, I have changed the duration of the block to indefinitely. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As the target of his threat, I'd like to reiterate that I think this might be excessive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Indefinite blocks for community pain are really not for established users who speak unpopular opinions, but rather for the trolls who play with the wiki. I'm no fan of this user, haven't had pleasant interractions, but going to infinite is excessive. Geogre 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from my admittedly limited interaction with him, this is not a case of suffering for unpopular opinions (except if that counts as an opinion for you), but a case of incessant disruption. Given his history, he is unlikely to heed yet another warning, and so I fail to see what other measure will stop us from ever having to waste more time on his misconduct. Let him seek the attention he appears to need somewhere else. Sandstein 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously torn here. There's no question that Light current is a major pain in the ass. And yet, he's got over 30,000 edits, and his mainspace edits appear to be valuable contributions to electrical engineering related topics. Here's the current summary for User:Light_current, run at Sat Feb 3 18:08:12 2007 GMT:

     Image talk:               4
     Image:                    51
     Mainspace                 11716
     Talk:                     7012
     Template:                 6
     User talk:                3415
     User:                     340
     Wikipedia talk:           2089
     Wikipedia:                5730
     avg edits per article     7.40
     earliest                  05:33, 1 August 2005
     number of unique articles 4105
     total                     30363

It appears that he's never actually been blocked for more than a week at a time (he's been blocked for as long as a month, then paroled after a few days). And he's never really been blocked at all, as he uses his talk page as a soap box through his blocks. He appears to have been a valuable contributor for a year before the civility issues started last August. It may be that he has personal issues that he needs to work through. I've had almost no contact with him, so I could be completely off-base here. But if the admins who have been dealing with his crap think there's any possibility of salvaging him as a useful contributor, then we should try a longer block, for at least a month or two, with his soap box locked down, with a clear understanding on his return that the community's patience has run out. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to support a longer cooling-off period, so that Light current can deal with whatever demons he has at the moment. There is no question that when LC is being productive, he is an asset to the encyclopedia. (Note, however, that the edit counts above may be somewhat misleading—LC doesn't seem to make effective use of the preview button or the minor edit tick box.)

After Light current's initial 3RR block last August, it looks from the block log like he got himself rather worked up and started making additional personal attacks, which led in turn to longer blocks. It appears that we have a similar situation here. Light current failed to respond to warnings, was blocked, and then decided to climb the Reichstag. In the August case, he eventually cooled off and went back to being a productive contributor. As short blocks haven't been working here, perhaps a month will allow him time to gain some perspective. I hate to write him off completely at this point.

Note that it will probably be best to leave his talk page protected during this period. As Jim Douglas has noted, Light current has a history of using his talk page to rant, soapbox, and work himself up while blocked. (Sometimes this behaviour has led to extensions of his blocks.) Looking at his edit history, the last couple of times he was blocked he was racking up about a hundred edits per day on his talk page before it was protected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I second TenOfAllTrades's assessment. As someone who has been keeping a close eye on LC for a period of time now, I believe he needs a significant time away from WP to realise that this isn't a game. Moreover, I also think any block now, or in the future, should be accompanied with by talk page protection, as he uses that to build up an head of steam which makes the problem worse. I would support a month block and, on its expiry, it being made clear to LC that should his disruptive behaviour continue it will be indefinite next time. Rockpocket 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this course of action, although I think it is rather unlikely to work, because I see no reason not to try. Maybe a month or two off, with a clear statement that he's going to be indef blocked if he continues his previous pattern of behavior, will change, his mind. I don't want him gone if it's at all avoidable—and if he comes off his block and behaves poorly, then he'll be just as indef blocked as he is now. Perhaps we should also consider a community ban from pages that lead him into trouble, if that's possible—although I think it would be difficult, since the page that leads him into trouble the most is his own talk page. -- SCZenz 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support a longer cool-off period, but not an indefinite ban; that seems too much like retribution. Remember the starting header was "How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?" which I think is a far better aim than "how do we remove him as a problem?" Trebor 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this comment is fair to those supporting indef blocks; I'll write a more detailed note on your talk page. The gist is: our ultimate aim is to write a quality encyclopedia, and either of the two goals you quote may become necessary in order to achieve that end. -- SCZenz 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a real downside to trying the month instead of an indefinite block? If it goes negative after that, it'll be indef soon enough, and not many people here have contested the value of contributes made. Bitnine 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've responded more fully on your talk page.I apologise for characterising the motives behind people's opinions of the length of bans; given my limited involvement, I will let others decide. Trebor 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SCZenz's comments on Trebor's talk. If all of you would like to spend your time babysitting looking after this editor instead of, well, writing a quality encyclopedia, it's not my business to tell you not to. In the case that we do not have consensus for a ban, which I still think is the sensible thing to do, I support SCZenz's proposal: a longer cool-off period, combined with the prospect of an immediate indefinite block in the case of any further disruption. Consider, though: It's quite apparent from his behaviour that Light current has not just poor social graces, but substantial personal issues (of whatever sort). Wikipedia is not therapy, and I'm not sure that his continued stay here would be of benefit to him (let alone to us, of course). Sandstein 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) — Addendum: "Babysitting" was a poor choice of words, sorry. Sandstein 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) I agree with the above, that a longer cool off period, but not an indefinite block, is the best solution. Light current has been a productive contributor and could be one again. I think there's consensus for resetting the block timer to one month, no? One thing that would be helpful is telling, no, urging, him to do his absolute best to not interact with Hipocrite, Ten, Friday. What do people think of this? Picaroon 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with reducing the block to a month. When he returns, I would suggest that interaction with Hipocrite, Ten, Friday should be avoided completely. Addhoc 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Two of the users you listed are part of the team of administrators who've been dealing with his behavior; they can't very well avoid interacting with him unless there are replacements for them, and frankly I don't think they've done anything that would justify asking them to avoid him. And if they're not avoiding him, I don't see how exactly to tell them to avoid him. -- SCZenz 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that they should avoid each other, and this includes them not following LC around and correcting everything he does. If he makes mistakes, let others correct them. StuRat 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have several comments:

1) If somebody files a complaint at AN/I, the responses should either be to support the complaint or oppose it, but in no case should the user who issued the complaint be blocked as a result of having made the complaint. Such an action makes people feel they can no longer request assistance here. This is a disturbing pattern I've seen here. Remember, just because a user may have engaged in uncivil behaviour doesn't mean they lose the right to complain if they are, or feel they are, in turn, treated uncivilly. This should be a "safe place" to voice concerns, not a place where issuing a complaint gets you blocked. This is an important safety valve.

2) An indefinite ban should only be used on people who solely engage in vandalism. This is not LC, he has made thousands of useful contributions.

3) If LC's complaint about Friday doesn't fall within the technical definition of Wikistalking, perhaps the def should be a bit broader. If I, for example, followed Friday around and made trivial changes to each of his contributions (added a comma here, changed a word to a synonym there, etc.), this wouldn't qualify as Wikistalking either, but it would likely annoy Friday, so I wouldn't do it. Think of real world stalking. If a person follows you into every public place you go, wouldn't that make you nervous ?

4) To take an example, if Friday hadn't reverted LC's insertion of the "Description" header in the jester article, what would have happened ? Perhaps another user would have removed it, or perhaps they would have improved the situation. I do tend to agree with LC that the detailed description of the clothing of a jester wasn't appropriate for the intro, yet some intro did need to remain. Had Friday left LC's addition in place, we may have ended up with a better article, with a new intro that didn't go into that level of detail on the clothing, and the detailed description properly listed under the "Description" header LC added. Friday should try to see what LC was trying to accomplish and assist him (by writing a new intro that didn't get into clothing details, in this case), rather than just deleting LC's contributions.

So, to conclude, can't we all just be a bit more patient with people who disagree with us and try to cool things off rather than trying to escalate conflict ?

StuRat 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that if the end result when user A issues a good-faith complaint at AN/I about user B is that user A gets blocked, that's exceedingly unfortunate and gives the appearance of punishing whistleblowers, etc. Unfortunate as the pattern is, though, we can't just say that "no one who issues a complaint at AN/I may himself be blocked", because we would then set ourselves up for (a) endless abuse by trolls who would issue good-faith complaints and then turn into royal pains in the neck, and (b) people issuing non-good-faith complaints.

(I'm not saying that Light Current was being an annoying troll, or that his complaint against Friday was not in good faith. I don't know about either of those.)

However, a bit more needs to be said about the allegation of stalking. All of us care about this encyclopedia. If I (or anyone) notice a conspicuously bad edit, I/we are quite likely to check that editor's contribution log to see if any similarly bad edits have been made by that same editor elsewhere. If so, I/we are going to fix them. What else can we do? Tie our hands and avoid fixing them, let a pattern of bad edits continue, just to avoid being labeled a stalker? No, of course not. It's a wiki, anyone can edit anything at any time in order to make it better. How you got there doesn't matter.

(I'm not saying that Light Current was performing "conspicuously bad edits". But as several people have pointed out already, it's only stalking if done to harass or annoy. Making a simple improvement shouldn't be construed as harassment.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have elaborated in his talk page, but I wanted to note here that StuRat's interpretation of the build up towards this action is not accurate. LC's block was not in response to his complaint here. A number of admins have been discussion a solution to LC's disruption for a while now, one recent exchange where indef blocks were discussed (see User talk:SCZenz#Blocked Light current) started before LC's complaint was made. Rockpocket 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I have no opinion on whether LC should be banned or not, I have to object to your second point above. Per WP:BAN, users whom the community has deemed disruptive or those who have exhausted the community patience may be banned for such. I myself had mixed interactions with LC, some good, some bad, and so do not wish to pass judgment on his worthiness on Wikipedia. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Physicq's comment on point 2; Wikipedia policy in regard to community bans is well-established, and for good reasons. I object to point 1 rather strongly: Light current was not, in fact, blocked for issuing his complaint, but it was a symptom of a broad overall pattern of problematic behavior and has been treated as such in these discussions. If you think his accusations toward User:Friday are the primary issue here, then you are barking up the wrong tree. -- SCZenz 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, now. There has been no mention of LC here since a thread way back in the archives that started Jan 18th (again in response to a complaint about another user, in this case one I added). Then, immediately after LC made a complaint here, there is talk of an indefinite community ban on LC. It's even titled as a subsection of the original complaint to show that this ban is, in fact, related to his complaint. To say that this is all just a coincidence and LC would have been blocked at the same time had he not issued a complaint here simply isn't credible. Issuing a complaint should not be seen as even a partial cause for blocking the complainer, all that does is silence the discussion, which isn't healthy at all. And LC, in particular, hasn't been making large numbers of complaints here, in any case. StuRat 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What isn't credible is any notion that issuing a complaint here, or anything other than LC's own consistently over the top behavior [8], had anything to do with it. Any user is free to raise any complaint they'd like here, and if anyone is ever blocked for raising an issue here please let me know (I will personally unblock them). What they're not free to do is belligerently argue about it, repeatedly delete relevant commentary, and tell other editors to drop dead. Anyone who does so risks being blocked. Anyone with LC's history who does so risks being banned. He exhausted my patience quite a while ago. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Block has been changed to a month. Talk page will remain protected for LC's own safety during that time. pschemp | talk 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reflection of the consensus here to me; although many prefer an indef block, it's best to err on the side of giving him one more chance. -- SCZenz 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's not a bad solution. I've now extended his talk page protection accordingly. Sandstein 00:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Light current shouldn't be community banned. Okay, so I've had no experience with this user, but based on his contributions to electrical-related topics have been useful, not disruptivr, maybe he should be given another chance. --sunstar net^talk 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A while ago, I recall someone having suggested mentorship/adoption/whatever-it's-called for Light current. I think someone gave it a go. Did that lead anywhere? Might this be an option when he returns to editing? ---Sluzzelin 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also do not consider a community ban to be an adequate resolution to the issue at this stage. The block seems ok; I may even reduce it to two weeks, as one month still seems a bit harsh to me. But I do think that perhaps the best solution to this may be for it to end up in ArbCom's court. I'm not sure how helpful an RfC would be, and there have been repeated attempts to bring closure to the RD debate, and all the issues that sprang up from it, by unaffiliated third parties. The lack of results from those discussions tells me that mediation will not work. I sure would hate to lose a qualified user over this, but there may be a need for gradual, enforcable restictions to be placed on him. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't reduce the block duration to two weeks. I strongly believe that LC needs at least a month away from Wikipedia to clear his head and gain some perspective. Reducing the block to two weeks would not be in his best interest. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please don't do that, TitoxD. Consensus in this discussion is pretty clearly for a month. I'll leave a more detailed message on your talk page. -- SCZenz 10:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with StuRat. Indef is absurd, and a month is harsh. As for it being a reaction to his filing a complaint here, hey A then B. Amazing time correlation for it to be a mere coincidence. And he has made many valued contributions. Edison 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Indef isn't "absurd"; it was a reasonable proposal, and it may still become necessary. In my opinion, though, it's premature to write off a contributor who has made valuable contributions in the past, and may still do so in the future. The block was not a reaction to LC's posting here; it was in response to a long history of civility problems. Blocking him for a month is a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, and I hope it will give him the time he needs to gain some perspective. It's not punitive in any sense; it's a measured response to a history of disruptive behaviour. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Of course it's not just a coincidence, Edison. Light current was having substantial civility problems, and he decided to post here to counter what he feels is harassment (namely, administrators intervening with regard to his behavior); he behaved rather uncivilly in the process of the discussion itself, which brought his behavior to the attention of various users, who looked at his contributions and proposed that an indef ban might be appropriate. A month is harsh for any particular action he's taken, but not at all when taken cumulatively. Unless you've gone through the literally thousands of edits, since August, that some of us have been dealing with, and believe that Light current does not have a substantial and continuing civility problem, it would be good of you to assume good faith and not make barely-veiled allegations of administrative misconduct. (If you have evidence of administrative misconduct, please file a request for comment and include diffs.) -- SCZenz 10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  To be clear, Light currrent was making a concerted effort to raise the hackles of several other editors – I was one – through a series of attacks and insults. (A non-exhaustive list appears at the beginning of the section #How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow? above.) Having seen that particular pattern of behaviour before, we were ignoring it, in the hope that Light current would cool off and go back to constructive editing. We were trying not to indulge his penchant for wikilawyering and wilful ignorance of the problems with his behaviour. When presented with criticism, Light current's response is often very hasty and often rude. This happens even with neutral third parties who attempt to give him good advice. This incivility tends to get worse if one gets sucked into the discussion; we hoped to turn off the taps and encourage him to calm down. I know that I considered posting about the problem on this page, and I imagine that some others did the same. Nevertheless, it didn't strike me as likely to help Light current calm down—so I refrained.

  Instead of finding more constructive pursuits, Light current decided to bring his message here. He decided to cast the dispute as solely a problem with him and Friday. He decided to argue with the advice of several other editors, and he decided to refuse to let the matter drop. At that point it seemed reasonable to broaden the discussion to properly include Light current's own conduct. Yes, I'm sure that Friday was watching Light current's edits; no, I don't think it was stalking. It was an administrator keeping an eye on an editor who had been engaging in very rude behaviour, and who in the past had deliberately damaged articles (while angry) to make a point (see the history of You have two cows). No editor should be particularly surprised to find that posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard might prompt an admin or two to look at their behaviour—particularly bad conduct that has happened in the preceding twenty-four hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ten, I just don't think that's proper behavior. If we are going to do that, there should be a warning: "any non-Admin who issues a complaint here will have their contributions reviewed with a fine-toothed comb and will be blocked if any justification can be found". StuRat 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But I think you're hyperbolizing again. The warning would be, "If you're engaged in contentious battles with numerous other editors, and if you bring a complaint about one of them to AN/I, and if you continue your contentious rhetoric during the AN/I discussion, it's possible you'll find the administrators at AN/I determining that you're at least partially at fault." (This is of course similar and analogous to a warning which I believe is explicitly stated for RfC.)

But I have to disagree with one thing Ten said, too. It is not clear that Light Current was "making a concerted effort to raise the hackles of several other editors". We can't know his motives for sure, and even if we somehow could know, AGF and/or Hanlon's razor suggests that we keep mum about that aspect, and merely observe that he "is raising the hackles of several other editors". —Steve Summit (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dweller's proposal

I'd like to chime in. I'm not an admin, so I don't know if I'm "speaking" out of turn, but because LC is (between the sniping) a generally positive contributor on quite a prolific level, I'd like to suggest a shorter block if LC agrees to the following:

1. not debating issues regarding his behaviour to date (ie letting it lie - and it would help, good behaviour permitting, and be fair if everyone else did the same)
2. accepting a parole period with full knowledge that any flagrant bad behaviour will bring an extremely lengthy or indefinite block
3. accepting mentoring from an admin not previously involved in this conflict for the duration of the parole period
4. not posting to any Ref Desk at all, (or talk page thereof!) for the duration of the parole period

I would hope that such restrictions will help LC focus his attention on productive editing to the mutual benefit of all. I would hope that those who have been in conflict with him would avoid edits that may provoke him. Please do consider this proposal. --Dweller 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're not speaking out of turn; this page is used by everyone to discuss issues requiring administrative action. Proposals on ways forward are definitely appreciated, since we're kind of out of good ideas.

I support all those conditions once he's unblocked, but I do not support a reduction of the block time, or at least not a substantial reduction. The reason is that this block is not punitive; it is rather a chance to give Light current a chance to cool down and reflect on his participation in Wikipedia, and it is my opinion that his chances of successfully turning over a new leaf are much higher if he takes a substantial cool down period. -- SCZenz 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the challenge. (I'm speaking generally, not trying to disagree with any of the above.) The hypothesis is that admins have not been ganging up on Light Current and that the block is not punitive. The problem, of course, is that when a user has become convinced that admins are ganging up on him, it's next to impossible for that user not to believe that blocks are punitive. It's also next to impossible for that user to ever realize that the admins were not ganging up on him in the first place. Therefore, as we've seen all too many times, these things usually go from bad to worse, with Arbcom cases and bans at their end. I wish this outcome weren't so inevitable; I wish there were some alternate path along which the disillusioned editor could realize and accept the more positive reality of the situation. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the language we use. There may not be any "ganging up", and the blocks may not be punitive, but the whole tone of the debate is that the disillusioned editor is wrong, that his behavior has been unacceptable, that he needs to change whether he wants to or not. There's a subsection above titled "How do we get Light current back on the straight and narrow?" which is an example of this. In the previous paragraph I wrote of the disillusioned editor needing to "accept the reality of the situation", which is another example of this. (I tried to soften it by adding the words "more positive", but it's still too harsh.)

Someone who firmly believes that he is in the right and his detractors are in the wrong, and who for whatever reason entertains the thought "and they're ganging up on me" before ever considering "but I might be wrong", can very easily fall into a trap in which every new voice that's trying to help him, no matter how gently and compassionately, is heard to be yet another gang member joining the chorus of "you're wrong and you need to change". The disillusioned editor does need to change, and in many cases the change isn't even a big or difficult one, but the editor needs to make the change because he wants to, not because he's being told he has to. And it's not easy, in that situation, to get to the point where you want to make the change. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. Since he is wrong, his behavior has been unacceptable, and he does need to change, I am not sure how to solve it. Based on my experience, pretending these things are not true would only serve to embolden him. -- SCZenz 14:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to pretend they're not true, but we may have to be more diplomatic in the way we present them. In particular, if our view of the ideal solution is that we could ever get to a point where we can all get along (as opposed to, say, a point where those of us who can't are banned), it's clear that Light current is never going to be able to get along with SCZenz as long as SCZenz says things like "he is wrong" or "he does need to change". (Not trying to give you a hard time here or anything, just observing a fact.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the limitations of Light current's ability to get along with other users (especially those offering harsh but civil criticism), but I think there's a limit to how much we can treat him with kid gloves; whether we expect he'll react badly or not, he is still responsible for his reactions. You are right, of course, that we should be as diplomatic as possible, but I am at a loss for how to be very diplomatic at this point. I would love to have your suggestions to how to handle our current situation:

The situation, in brief, is that Light current has a pattern of uncivil and agressive behavior toward other users; he has exhausted the patience of many community members, and the consensus is to block him from the site for a month and then give him one more chance. If upon his return he demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand the problems with his previous behavior, and modify it appropriately, he will very likely be indefinitely blocked in short order. Now, how do you propose to present this situation accurately but more diplomatically? -- SCZenz 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, shoot, you would have to ask that. If I knew how to, I wouldn't be playing pretend tinhorn diplomat here on Wikipedia, I'd be a real diplomat, and I would have solved the crises in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Darfur, and South Central L.A. by now, and I'd have two or three Nobel Peace Prizes on my mantlepiece. --Steve Summit (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LC is intelligent and has admitted to being occasionally been out of line. The admins have also made admitted to occasional mistakes. But I believe that the real key here is to draw a line and move on. There's no point in a to and fro debate on what's gone on. The steps I've suggested above (now flatteringly named after me, lol) are intended to restore a status of useful contribution without conflict. It's also about perceptions of reality on both sides, as much as objective truth. To summarise:

• The admins need to feel that LC won't be disruptive
• LC needs to feel that he is not being stalked

Debating endlessly the rights and wrongs of behavior by all parties to date won't solve either of those situations. --Dweller 14:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughtfulness regarding the situation is appreciated, as is the effort you've put into your analysis. I'd like to offer a couple of observations that might affect your suggestions above, however. First, Light current has a definite tendency to not only assume bad faith, but even when given opportunities essentially identical to what you describe, he keeps sniping at the people he disagrees with. It's not always in the form of posting to their user pages, but he'll make snide little "asides" when talking to other people, he'll post rants on his usertalk, and in the end result is that he's actively poisoning the community. I don't think he intends to do this, but for whatever reason, he seems unable to stop. Look at the edits he makes to his user_talk whenever he's blocked. He begins "churning", for lack of a better word. The pace of his vitriolic edits escalates to a fever pitch and never abates. He'll rules-lawyer things well past resolution when he doesn't like the answer, makes progressively worse attacks on the people he feels have 'wronged' him, and more than one person has ended up protecting his page to, as has been noted above, protect him from himself and prevent further disruption of the project. Before meeting him, I didn't realize it was possible to disrupt the project from a single user talk page, but Light current has enlightened me.

Based on my experience with this user, I predict that the following would happen if your proposal was adopted directly:

1. He would start out by thanking everyone and promising to edit good. And he would, for about a day. Maybe 10-20 articles about electrical engineering would see improvement.
2. He'd begin to assert within a day or so that the decision of the abusive administrators had been overturned, using his shortened block as example.
3. He'd start injecting snide comments into user_talk pages about how he was "banned" from RefDesk, and imply that the man was keeping him down. At this point, he'd be working himself up about the subject.
4. After 5-6 days, he'd start posting to user talk pages or AN/I messages to the effect of "Hey, look at how good I'm doing, can I come back to RefDesk now?".
5. If folks said "No", he'd escalate the pitch of his corrosive attacks on the people he feels have 'done him wrong'. He'd start making references to how he's going to RfC them, but won't follow through. Any time someone calls him on this downward spiral, he'll aggressively rules-lawyer them. "Tell me specifically what part of that sentence was in violation of the rules" is a sentiment anyone who interacts with Light current encounters, and it sometimes seems that no matter how many times you answer, he'll ask for the same information again the next time.

I worked with Light current last year to try and get him back onto the path so he wouldn't fall off the cliff. There was a one week block involved. but I kept up the assumption of good faith, I actively worked with him via e-mail to try and keep his spirit up, I did everything I could to make it clear that it was not punitive, and explained the community reasoning behind it. I treated him with respect and kindness, but I stuck to the plan. At the end of the block, his page was unlocked, he was unblocked, and he did great for a while. I think the elements of success are clearly defined in the current plan that the blocking admin is following. At this point, a reduction in the block length will reinforce the feeling that he was 'wronged' and the blocking admin was 'chastised' and will result in a poisonous mood when he returns. But if community consensus remains behind the admin making the difficult decision (which I fully endorse, an editor with such a rich block log really can't assert that he or she 'doesn't get it' at this point), then it has a better chance of being successful when it concludes (defined as Light current returning as a productive editor who has a real understanding of the community's disapproval of his recent actions who can grow as an editor and improve the health of the project, not hurt it). I know Cardinal Richelieu said that, given a letter written by an honest man he could find something in it with which to hang him, and I'm sure I've said something above that will spark controversy, but I'm writing from the perspective of someone who has experience with the user and would like to try and help him get on track again. I've asserted to Light current before that many other users doing the same things he has might have been indef blocked and forgotten ages ago, but it's important that he understand that we really _do_ want him here as a productive, healthy editor because we value his contributions.

Readers digest version of the above: Let the current block duration stand. Don't shorten it, it will hurt Light current's chances of coming back healthy because it will reinforce his belief that he was unjustly blocked in the first place, and this is based on past interactions with him. I like him and don't want him kicked off the project, but he's on a train to perdition without thoughtful admintervention. I support the current blocking admin because I think his plan is the best for bringing Light current back from the precipice. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, I just don't understand how it's possible to disrupt Wikipedia from a user talk page. What's to prevent everyone from just ignoring whatever he writes there ? "It takes two to tango", after all. StuRat 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should he be allowed to use his userpage to call TenOfAllTrades a nazi? (See this edit summary.) That's talk abuse and a severe personal attack rolled into one, and whether you want to call it "disruption" or "just plain outrageous," there's no way I would ask any editor to ignore it. -- SCZenz 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is how. When the idea of ignoring LC's talk-page lawyering in response to warnings was floated, LC himself suggested that "If you cant provide expalnations, you shouldnt be accusing me in the first place. Lack of explanation shows fuzzy thinking and of course cowardice" [9]. In other words, he refuses to accept the validity of requests for him to change his behaviour unless you fully explain your position. This appears reasonable, unless one is familiar with LC's unique brand of lawyering on his talkpage. Every explanation leads to another attempt to point out an imagined flaw (usually involving his interpretation of some policy). This has sucked God knows how many hours of my time, not to mention Friday, ToaT and SCZenz. When this happens ad infinitum, it becomes disruptive. Rockpocket

At some point, you just have to say "No, you are wrong. Bye." —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And that is exactly what has happened with the lengthy block. Rockpocket 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys should be able to ignore it if he calls you a Nazi on his talk page. Since it's obvious you aren't actually a member of the German Nazi party, that makes it a rather mild insult. StuRat 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider it an egregious insult, and obviously others do too; I have no idea what makes you imagine it isn't. Any user who calls another user a Nazi on Wikipedia can expect to be blocked, especially if the have a continuing pattern of misbehavior, unless they apologize clearly and promptly. -- SCZenz 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So any insult which isn't actually true is only a mild insult? I can call people c**ts and because they are clearly human beings it only becomes a mild insult? --pgk 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying anyone has or hasn't done the latter, I haven't looked into this debate just a passing comment on a post I saw. Insults are most normally just calling someone something you think they will find offensive, and I would suggest in most cases that will entail the insult being untruthful. --pgk 12:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If somebody actually could be a NAZI, say if they were born in 1920 in Germany, then it would be a far more serious insult. BTW, where did LC actually say this ? I can't find it. StuRat 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked it already above, but here it is again: see the summary of this edit. -- SCZenz 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One of my intentions, as I posted to SCZenz was to show LC that there's no admin plot to "get" him, but if there's prior form for that pattern of behaviour, your words are persuasive. Thank you for the detailed reply. It does seem as if there's a strong consensus for one month. I want a positive LC back on the Project. This really saddens me, but if there's no other way... --Dweller 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• (No admin, but have been interacting with LC for a couple of months). I think Dweller's proposal is worth considering (all four bullet points, including the comments in parentheses) regardless of whether the duration of LC's block stands or is reduced. ---Sluzzelin 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Chairboy's summary of the situation. I support a one month community ban, enforced by a block and talk page protection, aimed at giving Light current time to realise that the community (not just a group of admins) are serious about not tolerating this kind of behaviour. Carcharoth 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I will be brief (for me ... grin!)... I too agree with Chairboy's summary. I've interacted with LC a bit in the past as well. I do think he's funny, sometimes, and a contributor who wants to contribute positively, but that he has issues he needs to deal with. A month is the right duration this time. (Dweller's restrictions are certianly worth considering after he comes off that month, though) A month... not to be punitive, but because I really think he needs that much time away from the project to contemplate how he can consistently contribute productively and successfully. Please do not reduce it, the consensus for a month seems clear to me. And keep his talk page protected as well so he doesn't spin himself up per previous behaviour. This is an editor that the community has invested a lot of time in trying to save, but it's time for a last chance, and if that fails, time to cut our losses and move on, not throw more good time and effort in after bad. ++Lar: t/c 13:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't often chime in here, but since I tried to help LC above, I will: I support the one month block and would object to shortening it. I was on the fence about an indefinite block before seeing his contribution patterns, and think there is a way this editor can come back to the fold of reasonableness. I would like to see him find a mentor/someone to bounce things off of when he starts to work himself up (I tried to perform the same function for Cool Cat last year, and I think it helped, some). I think Dweller's suggestion is worth considering, with the knowledge that if he starts acting up again, considerable weight has already been expressed for an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • However see [[User: Light current evading block? below. If this continues during his one month ban I will shift quickly to the indefinite camp... -- nae'blis 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• I like dwellers proposal but there is too much history here. I agree with chairboy above. To StuRat, any editor that sucks time from other editors on wikipedia is a huge disruption. This nitpicking over rules and regulations at the expense of common sense has to stop. David D. (Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is this the gist of the Light current situation:

He has been blocked for incivility and disrupting the reference desk. He has violated WP:USER to attack another user.

I agree that the 1 month block is the right thing to do. When he comes back off it, should he have to undergo some sort of parole/agreement etc. or even a mediation session?? --sunstar net^talk 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability (people)

Edit-warring on Wikipedia:Notability (people). There was a brief pause but one of the parties has expressed an intention to resume here. It looks like this will continue until someone gets blocked or the page gets protected. Somebody please intervene. --Ideogram 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you call this intervention. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that attempted discussion so far has been unproductive, to put it mildly. There was a failed MedCab attempt here. I think the parties need some "guidance" but I am at a loss as to how it might be provided. --Ideogram 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• There haven't been any edits in two days. When I came here for intervention, I was told to go the dispute resolution route. That failed, and Radiant has apparently ceased being disruptive, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't intend to "resume" anything other than institute the consensus version that existed for years, so don't worry. This is the exact same route I took at WP:MUSIC with no problems once "discussion" died down ([10][11]), and something I plan on doing at WP:WEB once things appear to be dead as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  •  Note: The page has been fully protected [12] per my request [13]. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lame. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wait until it's unprotected, then. If you want it resolved, you know who you have to go to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• So what you;re saying is, if it's unprotected you'll resume the edit war? C'mon, Jeff, you know that's not smart! Guy (Help!) 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be anything to resume. Radiant has appeared to cease the disruption, so there's no apparent problem. The question should be whether he plans to continue to push his own agenda. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Judging from your comments, I believe it would be useful if the page stays protected until you two have forgotten the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have a long memory. Since I have no interest in bumping the conflict up to the next level with Radiant (this is similar to what he pulled at WP:CREEP), we'll simply sit at a stalemate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Look, do you have a personal feud with Radiant? Seriously, I suggest both of you knock this off now before one of you ends up blocked. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's to knock off, we haven't been in contact for three days. Maybe sometime someone will block him for the disruption and tendentious editing, but it would be punitive at this stage, so I guess there's nothing else that can be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• (arbitrary undent) Kettle, meet pot. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Spoken as someone with little knowledge of the situation, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed. Radiant appears to be engaged in a good faith effort to reduce the Byzantine complexity of our rule base. More power to his elbow. I'd have thought Jeff would be onside here, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Funny, I see Radiant as being engaged in an effort to simply force his view of the project on everything, regardless of whether consensus exists or not. Whether I agree with your (or his) intents here is irrelevant - those seeking the change have not made even the slightest bit of effort to gain consensus, and that's a major problem. Unless consensus is being abandoned along with everything else here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's interesting, as I would describe Radiant's efforts as moving in exactly the opposite direction, increasing the redunancy and complexity of the rule base, coupled with an obsessively bureaucratic attitude that strikes me as surprising and disappointing. Further, the comments here alone demonstrate an unhelpful personalization of this conflict on the part of both parties. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• And there we have the problem: I am quite willing to discuss this, but Jeff is more interested in making derogatory remarks than in actual discussion, as should be obvious from his comments here. That is precisely why mediation didn't work out. Last week, Jeff stated that he would basically continue his harassment until I gave in regarding the underlying issue. As long as he keeps up this destructive approach, I don't really see this debate going anywhere. >Radiant< 11:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Kind of have to agree with Peter here. Look, both of you have been around for a while. You know enough about how this place works to sort this out yourselves without kicking off more pointless wikidrama. No one seems to be assuming much in the way of good faith, which might be a good start. You both have the best interests of the project at heart: bear that in mind and work from there. But that does not require this mutual attack session. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Good faith only needs to be extended for so far. That line was crossed quite a while ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There has not been a single moment where you've shown any willingess to discuss anything, Radiant. If you're really willing to discuss it, prove it for once instead of playing the victim card. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You've said that you want to distance yourself from your past at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but ironically your edit patterns with respect to this issue are quite similar to those associated with ED. For instance, making allegations about the issue but not substantiating them, denying facts because "you don't see them that way", persistenyl attacking the people who disagree with you, and forum shopping are all indicative of wikidrama. I just said that I was willing to discuss if you would lay off the harassment; you respond by denying that I want to discuss, and adding a personal attack. You don't seriously think that that is a way of resolving anything, I hope? >Radiant< 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some evidence of what I've had to put up with: this just occurred today, with the typical snark and snarl, and he has yet to even comment on the talk page. He's also started in here as I've watched this burn slowly without his "input," and have you taken a look at WP:CREEP? Yup, I'm the bad guy, that's certainly the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that editing and getting change to happen on policy and guideline pages is so slow. That is as it should be, but something does need to be done about the complexity of the existing set of pages. If anything, I would suggest that Radiant (and maybe jeff if he wants to) draws up an overall plan, and identifies key pages that need working on, and more discussion. Maybe we could even set up a way to have a permanent !vote disucssion page for policies and guidelines, so it is clearer at a glance how consensus is changing from one month to the next. People who read the page and talk page and agree to it, can 'sign up' to it, and those that have concerns can address them. If people later feel the page has changed, they can come back and recast their !vote. Kind of like an indefinite, open-ended RfC on the consensus status of the page, with subsections for specific changes. The talk page would be used for discussing changes to wording, and things like that. Keeping the !vote disucssions open indefinitely would avoid a small group coming along and changing things, but would make clear if consensus really is changing. Would anything like this work, or would it go too much against the spirit of 'voting is evil'? Carcharoth 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we already have Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies - but is that used enough? Carcharoth 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That might not hurt, but you've reached the crux of the argument - consensus. I'm not opposed at all to the slow burn of the way policies/guidelines evolve, because it assures us that consensus is being reached. It's why I originally reverted the change, and continue to implore Radiant to actually discuss this on the talk page, which he's failed to do. If there's no consensus for such a change, we shouldn't be making it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• We have RFC/Policy and we have the WP:VPP. The main problem appears to be that Jeff is working under a different definition of "consensus" than most of us; his definition appears to boil down to "if he disagrees with something, there can not be a consensus". Similarly, he has the habit of citing "consensus can change" if he wants to ignore precedent, and claiming "we need consensus for changes to the long-standing version" if he likes the precedent.
• The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to Jeff making a sweeping change to a page stable for over a month, and demanding consensus from the people who disagree with his change, because he claims there was no consensus for the stable version. >Radiant< 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to w.marsh making a sweeping change to a page stable for years, and not discussing it on the talk page. It's worth noting that, even though w.marsh disagreed with my reversion, he didn't revert back. Many have agreed that we need consensus for such a massive change, only one person is ignoring consensus in order to implement a preferred version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. >Radiant< 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The difference is only one of us is being honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sheesh, will you two listen to yourselves? This is not about anybody taking unilateral action, the changes have a lot of support and the old version has more than one supporter too. Why is it necessary to personalise the dispute? No, don't answer that, just don't do it, please. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with JzG; you guys are killing me here, and I like both of you. Is there any hope I or someone else can take you both into a small room and work this out? You're both making like circling sharks at this point... -- nae'blis 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has left Wikipedia, according to his userpage. --Ideogram 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. "'Apparently, all I really needed to do was sleep things off a bit...I'll be back in full force on Thursday, 8 February" Other than that, I'd like to second Nae'blis. I like both Jeff and Radiant, and it's a real shame they're fighting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Smith_Jones

Smith_Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a persistent and insidious vandal. Does not read like a newbie and sometimes makes valid edits such as the creation of a dab page or a WP:NPA apology plus refactoring of the relevant talk page. Could be a sock puppet of a user with a grudge, might be worth a checkuser. See my recent contributions here for an overview of the repair work. This does not include vandalism caught by others. All in all a persistent vandal who ignores the warnings on their talk page and several previous shorter blocks. AvB ÷ talk 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS On the surface everything looks OK, just a good faith newbie editor. However, on a very minor scale, and although I'm sure this is not the same person(s), this is still vandalism following the HeadleyDown pattern. To get an impression of what this user is about, one has to go over the user's talk page and read the comments left there by good faith editors. AvB ÷ talk 12:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Query inappropriate user page

Hi. Please take a look at User:VirtualEye. Is this inappropriate content for a WP user page? --Dweller 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of, lets see if it sticks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some contention about removing this page, it has been blanked, if you disagree discuss here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Step one until this discussion is over and there is consensus stop blanking his user page. Can you do that or Not? --- ALM 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Step two, I have read WP:USER sometime ago when my user page was on ANI. Tell me what is wrong with his page according to WP:USER? --- ALM 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the page blank because I feel the poem[14] violates the username policy in that it is clearly campaigning a point of view. I personally think it is a fine poem, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's polemic works. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"What can I not have on my user page? Polemical statements" Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy violation and secondly more bad user page was allowed in past after discussion on ANI. I will like to see that how you people can justify in change the rules this time. --- ALM 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Can you point to this discussion? If the userpage indeed states that the Qur'an encourages terrorism, as you say, then the decision not to remove it was plainly wrong, and should be rectified. Wikipedia is contentious enough without having editors screaming at one another from userpages.Proabivouac 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy violation, I spelled it out for you above. I understand you are upset that you believe a double standard is being applied. If you can explain in more detail how, I can look into this and perhaps resolve your concerns. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That was about User_talk:That_Guy,_From_That_Show!#Please_suggest dicussion about [User page]. However, I think it was changed now after second discussion on ANI. --- ALM 15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That also looks like a clear policy violation, I am glad it has been removed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User continues to revert it.Proabivouac 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me but may I ask if the policies are just to threaten the Muslims's pages? When some Christians or some Islam-hatered people have their user pages full of stuff then everybody forgets what is policy. There are many many user pages fully based on Christianity, Zionism and Islam-hatered, but nobody will object, why? because wikipedian personally dont dislike that. When I write something only and only about my religion and my point of view of suppression, then come people with full equipments and policies.

A page on wikipedia can not be banned just because the truth is bitter, or some people dont agree this to be true. For instace, there are hundreds of atheist wikipedians on the site, but then can simply blank the pages advocating the existence of God, infact they have to tolerate them even then dont agree with that and think that to be stupidity to believe in God, right? But in contrast, Why would american wikipedians like the content on wikipedia about Islam which they personally dislike or think that to be bitter? All the international peace organizations like Amnesty International and even UN opposed the War on Iraq and the killing of Afghanis, but just because most of wikipedians and internet users come from American Background in domination so why would they accept this to be a fact? Any opinion or observation which clashes with the American Patriotism that is slashed with the thing called "Wikipedia Policies".? And even that would be so, I did not name any other party in my poem except my own, i.e. Muslims. Being killed by who? I did not mention that is to be judged by the reader 'neutrally'. right?

I would ask in the context of my poem, to Wikipedians who keep on refering me about Policy thingy,

• Where did you hear first that Osama bin laden is terrorist?
• Where did you hear first that there is an org called Alqaedah?
• Where did you hear first the yelling about terrorism terrorism..... ?
• Where did you come to know about Islamic fundamentalism?

That is called American Media and government. And most of you just follow that but dont admit it, why? because it will violate your patriotism and Policies, right? I dont buy this.

The articles on wikipedia work like this:

This world is a jungle, and whatever the King of Jungle says, other animals start speaking about that just because of the fear and influence of the King. And there is an organization in the jungle, called Wikipedia which takes the chirping and peeping of the majority of animals to be a fact. That King of Jungle is currently America.

I dont accept somethings just because everyone is telling about that, I look for the originator or that disinformation. Simple is that.

And now go immediately blank my user page or even ban it. I give a damn to biased Policy threats, and only care about fair use of the weapon called 'Policy'. VirtualEye 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'm currently having major issues with Pyrofyr throwing personal attacks on a website (Ghost-Land.net) and its owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_Online&diff=105792492&oldid=105678686 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_Online&diff=105792492&oldid=105679659

I'm requesting to have this user removed and ip banned.

Ghost Land 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs do nothing to show personal attacks. In additon, note the difference between a block and a ban. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy. --Deskana (request backup) 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's okay calling people for homosexual rapists? Sorry for the temper but still.

Ghost Land 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not okay to insult people. It is just that those links do not show any insults, perhaps a technical error. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Check this diff. The user in question changed the description of an external link (which should not be there in the first place) to "Pitiful fansite run by a homosexual rapist". That's what the OP is talking about. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that this is a battle over a link to a fansite. I'm no expert on WP:EL, but I would think such a link to be inappropriate. Up until 26 January, there was a comment within the article stating that such links would be removed in accordance with the guidelines. However, several fansite links are now present. — MediaMangler 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the fansite link section, that kind of thing is against WP:EL. The offending user has been warned. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99

Also see incident #User Sikh 1 - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism.

Continously vandalising the Prohibitions in Sikhism page AND ADDING ORIGINAL RESEARCH. He keeps reposting his unsubstantiated lines and deleting valid refrences from the article. Please can you deal with this annoying person LOOK AT HIS EDIT HISTORY. AND HE HAS BEEN ADVERTISING HIS WEBSITE ON HIS WIKIPEDIA PERSONAL PAGE- AGAINST WIKIPEDIA RULES. HE HAS BEEN WARNED MANY TIMES OF VANDALISM AND ADDING ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA PLEASE DEAL WITH HIM. --Sikh 1 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, don't shout, and second of all, I don't see that you have first tried to converse with the other user about your concerns either at User talk:Sikh-history or at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism. As for the two IP contributors, those IPs are apparently used by lots of different users, and I still don't see an effort to address your concerns about OR and linkspam on Prohibitions in Sikhism. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These coversations have been happening with him since october 2006 and other members are fed up with his constant vandalism--Sikh 1 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop shouting. This appears, for the most part, to be a content dispute, and while Sikh does seem to have some issues with original research, I think calm discussion WITHOUT calling him a vandal is the way to solve this. His userpage (which appears to be an advertisement) may warrant a second look, though. --InShaneee 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else reading this: I also find it a little odd that Sikh1's first edit in two months was to warn sikh-history. --InShaneee 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted stuff from here... returned --Selket ^Talk 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am not vandalising but correcticting unverifiable research. In Sikhism meat eating is not prohibited, the coode of conduct for Sikhs clearly states so. http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html. These people are distorting facts. I am trying to restore a neutral point of view. They are also leaving abusive messages on my user page. I have also removed original research. Thanks --Sikh-history 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look he has been warned many times not to push his views onto other people and using his website to push those views and interpretations. If continues edit warring he must be warned and he takes warnings off his talk page to hide his bad reputation. If you got nothing to hide why try to hide the warning you have been given and DO NOT use YOUR SITE WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM to promote your views.--Sikh 1 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sikh 1, Sikh-history is correct. While I'm not sure whether his content is appropriate, you need to calm down and stop being so confrontational. --InShaneee 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to cause so much conflict, but I cannot sit by and watch Points of Views being added to artciles. They must be Neutral for Wikipedia. It is clear some people here like Sikh 1 do wish to do so. See the coversations of Sikh 1 pages about me. I have removed original reserach and added back verifiable links. --Sikh-history 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange new user User:Jeff Dorlean

Jeff Dorlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:POV editor who also left message on my talk page. User's userpage is clearly fraudulent claim as well. I am not sure whether this is too serious for WP:AIV where I normally report vandals. MKoltnow 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned indefinitely for trolling. Sorry to bother you. MKoltnow 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. He was probably blocked thanks to you bringing it up here. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Puppop

Is this acceptable? Zbl 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this:

Never mind, I just created a new account that will not vandalize and edited the article. Puppop 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's a problem, but as long as he/she keeps his/her nose clean then there isn't really an issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the new account (Poppup). Using a new account to evade a block is forbidden. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You what? I think the first unblock reason was sufficient. If there are no objections, I will unblock. Excelsior!El_C 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in wheel warring, and will not specifically object to an unblock. However, I did want to point out that the user vandalized again two weeks after initial vandalism warnings and has not contributed anything productive yet, made a mild personal attack on his/her talk page (the "idiots" bit), and violated WP:SOCK (which could be chalked up to policy unfamiliarity). For these concerns, I would not unblock myself, but again, I will not object, given that the user has been attempting to convince us that he/she will contribute productively. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, and I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant to this situation, but User:Zbl seems to have taken a keen interest in Puppop because Zbl has accused Puppop of being a sockpuppet of User:SupaSoldier. I'm not entirely certain why Zbl wants Puppop to be unblocked so that s/he can face sock charges, but that seems to be Zbl's motivation. Just an Fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock. Users who suddenly cry "I'll stop vandalizing" when they're indef-blocked don't impress me. And the use of a sock account to evade a block is particularly troublesome. The user needs a timeout, at the least. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple matter to re-block if the experiment of unblocking fails. Friday (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheel-war either, but I am not swayed by Friday's argument. Users who wait until they're indef-blocked before they have a deathbed conversion are all too common and I don't find them even a little bit credible. I won't beat the dead horse any longer, but that's my opinion. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case (since there is no risk of wheel warrning), I am unblocking. This, since I did not find the objections persuasive (these being mostly limited to generalizations which come across as excessively bureaucratic. Let's give this very new user a fresh chance and see what happens. Bending the rules toward such an end, in this case, is, in my opinion, desirable. Anyway, I hope all of that makes sense. Thank you. El_C 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth the chanse of getting a productive editor out of this. The worst that can happen is we get a revert some vandalism and reblock them.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest User:Jacob Peters IP sock -- Part Duex

I think it's 68.126.5.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The WHOIS is pointing to California, like other confirmed Jacob Peters IP socks. Moreover, this user has exactly the same pattern of pro-Soviet POV-pushing disruptive trolling, and the edit summaries clearly show that this is hardly a newbie. Recommend 48 hours of enforced wikibreak. I'm not sure this one is really worth the bother of RFCU. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK I've issued a 24 hour block. A longer block would probably be useless because this is a dynamic IP.--Isotope23 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, much obliged. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thaank you for the 24 hour block on the Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) IP sock. This vandal is relentless with his pro-Stalin POV pushing garbage. Jacob Peters has been banned permanently, but continues to edit under IPs. Can't we do something about these IPs? An entire range of IPs was blocked in the Cplot incident, so maybe the same can be done here. Check JPs list of suspected puppets for a full range of the 68.126.xxx.xxx IPs. TheQuandry 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly getting very annoying, quite often because we need to go to checkuser for confirmation, though it is getting easier and easier to spot the puppets. It's just so tedious when every few days or so yet more Jacob Peters garbage turns up. If he keeps going I really think that more drastic action may be appropriate. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with an IP block is that he is using a very popular DSL provider... basically we would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater here if we blocked the IPs. At this point I would say that prompt reporting to WP:AN/I is your best bet. I personally have no problem with a short block per WP:DUCK & WP:DENY of anyone exhibiting what is pretty clear Stalinist propaganda and editing from 68.126.xxx.xxx... Maybe there is a template around that could go on the talkpages of articles he is known to hit so other editors could easily recognize and report him.--Isotope23 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Grrr, but OK, fair enough. I'm just off to put the latest articles he hit on my watchlist :) Sigh. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is semi-protection for all the articles he hits an option? I know this is also a drastic step, but it will at least keep his IP socks away from those articles for a while. C ^thirty-three 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have resurfaced today editing as Erosion3. He's continued the above IP's edit war on Korean War here, and displayed 2 common Jacob Peters characteristics here: citing the soviet encyclopedia and signing his name on a separate line. Can we have him blocked here without going through RFCU, this one seems really obvious. C ^thirty-three 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious JP sock. The edit sumamries tell all. Please indef block based on WP:DUCK. TheQuandry 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Jat78 - Vandalising My Page

Hi can you help me with this fellow who is threatening to block me, merely because I pointed ourt to him that the Jat page was biased and not a neutral point of view. He also removed my disputed fact tags without a discussion. Please help. --Sikh-history 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Take the warning I gave and do not try to hide it by removing it from your talk page. You deleted a whole section out from the article without consultation or agreement. You cannot and people like have come wikipedia before who try to push their views you will be stopped - you WILL NOT be allowed to delete entire sections from articles without consultation agreement with the rest of us Wikipedians--Jat78 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You dileberately removed dispute tags from the Jat page. You are acting beyond your authority as vandal patrol. I will see to it you are reported and removed as you are pushing a biased point of view with non-verifiables sources. Your attempts to add Patiala, Nabha and Jind as Jat Kingdoms, rather than Sikh Kingdoms (as they are in reality will faiil). Also the sources used to back the article Dudhee etc are not scholarly works. Regards --Sikh-history 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to STOP making PERSONAL ATTACKS on other wikipedian before you make the situation even worse for yourself your're building a very bad reputation for yourself by pushing your POV and deleting sections from articles. You cannot decide whats OK and whats not we wikipedian will decide.--Jat78 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone neutral have a look at this.Jat78 is clearly biased, and has added a warning to block me for no good reason. He did not even discuss my edits and why I moved the Patiala, Nabha and Jind article. I need mediation on this. The Jat article in itself is a POV, but I am not concerened with that. I am only concerened with Patiala, Nabha and Jind being included as "Jat Kingdoms", when they clearly are Sikh Kingdoms. I have provided verifiable sources to back this up. Thanks --Sikh-history 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I help? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by WeniWidiWiki

I'm being stalked by WeniWidiWiki, who keeps bringing up a now disproven case of sockpuppetry. I am feeling harassed by this. Here is the checkuser which cleared me of operating Frater Xyzzy as a sock and yet WWW keeps bringing it up on a regular basis: [15], [16], [17], [18].

Could someone please ask this user to stop stalking me? Jefferson Anderson 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want people to believe there is a connection between you and Frater Xyzzy, could you explain why in this AMA request you said "Note: Frater Xyzzy tells me that he has a registered WP email address and requests that an Advocate contact him by email. " Addhoc 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a connection, we know each other. But we are located in different cities and he has been unfairly blocked as a sock of me. He asked me to get him an Advocate and I am doing so, so that I don't have to play that role. He can't put in a request for hos own advocate because he can't edit. What is one supposed to do, leave a friend blocked unfairly? Jefferson Anderson 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. If he's got email set up then he could just email an advocate. The check user confirms that you are separate people. Thanks again, Addhoc 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how that could be true. A checkuser can provide evidence that two accounts are likely to be the same person, but absence of evidence via check user doesn't actually confirm that two accounts are seperate people. How could it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon's check on 4 Feb may not have gone far enough back. UninvitedCompany ran a check in January (posted at RFAR/Starwood here. JeffersonAnderson has admitted that he and Frater worked at the same employer, which uses a proxy/firewall for internet connections, and that he joined Wikipedia to help Frater in a dispute [19]. They both edited several of the same AfD's, so it is possible this is at least a case of meatpuppetry. Frater now claims to have moved to Seattle. There is more evidence, and I am 49% convinced that Frater and Anderson are related to further sockpuppetry by Hanuman Das and Ekajati as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. However, if Frater and Anderson are currently editing from different cities, it may be that at least that part of the story is true. Thatcher131 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I really need to make a template explaining to people what a negative Checkuser results shows. When it says "No IP evidence" it means exactly that: there the editors in question have not used the same or closely related IP within the period under examination. It means, "no, checkuser does not prove sockpuppetry". It does not in any way disprove sockpuppetry. Checkuser is a useful tool for proving sockpuppetry. Not the opposite. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical means are a supplement to the decision process, they're not conclusive. What you've got is an IP address, you have no indication of what is behind that address. I happen to know that the address that I'm on at the moment has some 300,000 possible people behind it, the argument that Jefferson and Frater have used in the past. Equally the IP gateway that I'm behind is located some 200 miles away from my present location and provides service to the entire UK. My home IP address is located about 10 miles from my current geographic location and I could edit from it within about 20 minutes of leaving work.

Equally it is possible to work through two geographically discrete IP addresses from the same physical location. In the space of about 10 metres I have choices of the address visible through this edit and several other systems, one of which would give me an address on a different continent and 8 times zones away.

It depends on how the Secure Managed Interfaces are configured as to how much information you can get from them about what's behind.

The point is, a technical check supports other evidence, which is why the SSP case emphasises behaviour and style.

ALR 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Addhoc 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I kind of wish you hadn't deleted your paragraph, because it now looks as if I was responding to jpgordon with something that's probably a glimpse of the blindingly obvious to someone with CU tools!ALR 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

87.8.24.237 spam

87.8.24.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 87.8.24.237 is apperantly spaming user talk pages seen here please talk to him. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this person contacted you, but they contacted me because I removed a speedy deletion request on a userpage. This person was not spamming, but rather had a genuine concern.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Light current evading block?

There are many similarities between the postings on the ref desks of 87.102.8.103 (talk · contribs · count) and Light current (talk · contribs · count) - the spelling, grammar and inflammatory, pointless comments are all Lc's style. He seems to have quit for this evening, but it may be worth keeping an eye on. Natgoo 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sent to AIV. Failing that, Request for Checkuser may be appropriate. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, block evasion would not be vandalism if I am reading WP:VANDAL correctly. An admin may need to review this to take action. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to rfcu to confirm. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In an interesting coincidence, an IP that appears to be registered to the same internet provider, 83.100.174.70 (talk · contribs · count), appeared and made an awful lot of edits on the Ref Desk during one of Light current's previous blocks. I ignored it at the time because a) I didn't think that it would be worth the trouble to deal with formally, and b) I wasn't as familiar with Light current's editing style as I am now. A CheckUser followed – if appropriate – by a firm but polite word with Light current seems in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A CheckUser request has been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits from 88.109.41.162 (talk · contribs · count) seem mighly familiar as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are pretty obvious. Of course, that leaves the question of what should be done about them. Is there anyone left around here to whom Light current would listen? He desperately needs to disengage from Wikipedia for a while, for our good and his. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back with possible. Someone will need to look at the content of these. If they are obvious socks, they should be blocked. Ok, the word was inconclusive. Inconclusive = possible. pschemp | talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• A-hem. That's not what checkuser came back with. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. pschemp | talk 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All 'inconclusive' means is it doesn't confirm it one way or the other. Given the content, and the fact that it is on the same ISP, and the editing pattern, it's Light current. Suggest extending his block by 2 weeks. Proto::► 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is transparently Light Current. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The RfCU proved "inconclusive". As in, there was no conclusion. Inconclusive means nothing, there is not enough technical evidence to prove likely or unrelated. You may have to use other means to prove this, editing styles, patterns, etc. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we not spar about the meaning of inconclusive? :) I agree that precision is required. But to me, the editing patterns are more important, if several experienced editors say "same pattern" CU results do not matter. CU is imperfect, it can be fooled, and sometimes it can be inconclusive. Patterns are much harder to mimick if the contribution history is large enough. So I support a block for block evading sockpuppetry based on editors saying they see the pattern. (anon only, still allow account creation...) ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Light current all but announced his intention to evade the block a few days ago with this edit right here. Combine this with his previous block evasions, and there should be no surprise here. I think the best thing all around would be for him to come back with an alternate account that is sufficiently polite and mature that nobody knows it's him. Friday (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh-history - Vandalising the Jat and other articles

He has be causing a constant problem with POV, promoting his website WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM and interpretation pushing on MANY articles and has been WARNED many times.--Jat78 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ALREADY posted above. --InShaneee 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jat78 you are telling untruths. Why did you remove my dispute tags without discussion on the page?. That is againt Wiki policy. You are also abusing your position as Vandal patrol. Please take note. I have tried to add a neutral point of view to his article since this article is biased.--Sikh-history 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to STOP making PERSONAL ATTACKS on other wikipedian before you make the situation even worse for yourself your're building a very bad reputation for yourself by pushing your POV and deleting sections from articles. You cannot decide whats OK and whats not we wikipedian will decide.--Jat78 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you shouting. Stay cool.I am not concerned with reputations but only the facts. I want to ensure articles are unbiased and contain Neutral Points Of View. Your article on Jat clearly contains points of views, but I am not concerned with those. I am only concerned with those concerning Nabha, Jind and Patiala. These are not Jat Kingdoms and have never been so. They are Sikh Kingdoms, and I have provided several verifiable sources to back that up on the Patiala page. Nabha, Jind and Patiala wre one of the 12 Sikh Misls (Phulkian), an undisputed fact. To claim they were part of some pseudo Jat Confedracy exists only in your mind friend. You still have not answered why you removed the dispute tag without discussion, as that is againt wiki principles? Please answer.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't have this discussion here. Move it to the article talk page or one of your user pages. --Ideogram 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to User:Sikh-history this is a group account. This is against Wikipedia policy, if I am not mistaken.

It was a group account, but now it is one user as it was pointed out that a groupd account maybe seen as dodgy.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off, take a breather, and come back when you are capable of assuming good faith and having a reasonable discussion. --Ideogram 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am willing to have a reasonable discussion, and I even put dispute tags on the Jat article, however Jat78 removed them without discussion. I think we need some sort of third party arbitration over the issue of Patiala, Nabha and Jind at the Jat article. These should not be listed as Jat Kingdoms, but as Sikh Kingdoms. There is some propaganda of a murky sort going on here that wiki editors are unaware of, but I am knowlegable in this field (or so I am told :p). I still think Jat78's action in adding warning to my page are beyond his jurisdiction and he has no authority to do so. Please remove these warnings at once or allow another Admin to review them.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jboyler

Could an admin look into this Jboyler (talk · contribs) User talk:Jboyler and talk page history. I'm not sure how to approach this, however, the content may not need to stay on the talk page. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The user subsequently went on a rather profane personal attack spree and continued to vandalize articles, so I blocked him per a request on AIV. Since it was the second block in a very short period, I upped the period to a week. I would strongly welcome a review of the block period, and would not oppose an adjustment to the duration; up or down. The user's talk page would appear to have been protected by another admin as well. Kuru ^talk 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

70.16.18.21

Vandal 70.16.18.21 (currently active) has made six damaging edits within the last ten minutes to Venezuela, Loyola Blakefield, and Calvert Hall College High School. Kugelmass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV. —Dgies^t c 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped half an hour ago. As noted, report to AIV if resumes. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:24.211.252.124

FYI, this isp user deleted most of my user page because I redirected a page they created. That's great, real great. --Tainter 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate conduct by the IP, obviously. The IP has been final-warned and appears to have stopped. If this happens again, bring to WP:AIV (you can link this thread if you want). Let me know if you need any help restoring your page. Newyorkbrad 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Obsceneties in reason for editing

I was wondering if it was ok that 68.252.186.97 (talk · contribs) put down as a reason for editing List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor recurring characters, the following statement : "WHO'S THE DAMN MOTHER FUCKING COCK SUCKING ASSHOLE BITCH THAT ERASED MY INFORMATION?!?!?!?!?!?". Is this considered simply a form of expression ? It doesn't give much credibility to his input, which was also hard to understand. --Jackaranga 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've suggested the editor might want to consider our civility standards. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And I've removed the revision in question, so that the edit summary no longer offends our readers in the page history. Admins can still view it. Thank you, Jackaranga. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Mae Jemison

The page for the astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison is bogus. Please delete entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.239.48 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• It is not bogus, but has been so severely vandalized its too hard to revert. All versions are fake or contain stupid swearing. Someone needs to sort the fake from the real, will be very hard. --Jackaranga 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Someone fixed it now. --Jackaranga 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails, revert back a long ways. --Carnildo 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Byars Jr.

• I think this AfD needs some admin attention. Article creator Ballog (talk · contribs) (who is also editing as 24.60.54.59 (talk · contribs)) is being very abusive to RJASE1 (talk · contribs) and Dhartung (talk · contribs) and I think it needs to stop. JuJube 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a firmly worded warning on his talkpage. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ballog (talk · contribs) is also reverting the article to his version [20] which is a WP:BLP disaster waiting to happen. One Night In Hackney 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairness And Accuracy For All

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He continues a defamatory post about me that I've removed twice and asked him not to repost.

• Initial PA
• My initial deletion 22:41, February 5, 2007
• Readded by FAAFA
• Again I ask not to readd it
• Readded with PA in the comment section as well

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of personal attacks and disruption. He's been warned numerous times in the past yet persists. --Tbeatty 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a politely-worded comment on Fairness And Accuracy For All's talk page asking him to desist. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While he absolutely should not have re-added it once it became obvious that you were not amused (as Doug has noted in his comment to him), in my opinion it was pretty clearly an attempt at a satirical joke; perhaps some thicker skin/assumption of good faith would alleviate similar problems in the future? Just a suggestion which you are, of course, free to acknowledge or ignore. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users or new users, absolutely agree with you and if you had posted it, I may not have even reverted it. But his talk page and NBGPWS block log as well as his extensive history of personal attacks, disruption and baiting leaves a very short leash. Two requests to cease followed by 2 repostings are certainly enough for anyone, let alone someone with his history. JzG has left two warnings in the last week for his baiting of a different user. --Tbeatty 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. He's certainly been in his fair share of disputes. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked FAAFA for 24 hours for this [21] edit summary among other things. I really don't see how comparing other editors to Stalin helps build an encyclopaedia, and he has, as TBeatty notes, been warned many times, and blocked numerous times under his old account. There's no excuse for his not knowing better by now. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism

See previous incident #Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99

Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps adding warning to ban me on my page for no good reason. He also keeps adding non-verifiable facts and a Point of View to Prohibitions in Sikhism article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 07:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The issue of non-verifiable facts is a content dispute and needs to either be resolved on the article's talk page, or failing that, can use one of the available means of dispute resolution.

The warning being put on your talk page is clearly inappropriate and I have asked him to desist doing this. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Is still vanadalising my page by adding warnings. Please do something about this. This is harassment.--Sikh-history 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a strongly worded warning to Sikh 1's talk page. If the harassment continues, you can request any admin to block. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as soon he was unblocked, various IP's started spamming the Prohibitions in Sikhism article resulting in the article getting locked. Unfortunately, it is difficult to be reasonable with this rather emotional fellow. See conversation on above page and also my page. Thanks --Sikh-history 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be a connection between this user and the anon ips. Please concentrate on trying to discuss with him in good faith. --Ideogram 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Its hard but I'm trying friend :p --Sikh-history 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

GrahameKing did it, again (User Proto dealed with the previous Incident)

Grahame King deleted two weeks of discussion [22] at February 3th. This is the incident reported here.

And now, some background:

Grahame King made another deletion at January 29th [23] too, and he was warned by an administrator (User:Proto) about that kind of behaviour [24].

The deleted text is about a RfC (accepted by GrahameKing [25]) we should have in the immediate future. Once I presented the preliminary paperwork for the RfC in January , GrahameKing made his first deletion of a discussion.

I still presume good faith, so I suggest a talk with this User.

The guy seems to be worried about the discussion being present at Google, because he says that the content is "defamatory" (it is not, because it is sourced).

Randroide 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Grahame's deletion of text, and explicitly warned him (rather than asking him). If he does it again, he will be blocked. Proto::► 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAC, case closed. Thank you for your attention, Proto.Randroide 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Foul use of language

To Whom It May Concern:

As I'm unsure who I should address this too, I'll just state the problem. While I was searching for an article on Lunar Eclipses for my niece, I came across some foul language on the Reference page of this article. It seems someone has went in and did some editing of their own. I wasn't sure if you were aware of it or not, I figured I should at least report it. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Daisha Colony Spiritdancer25@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.69.217 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• It appears to be fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• That vandalism was deleted at 10:19am PST, one minute after it was added to the page. Sheer dumb bad luck they even saw it at all. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need adminn with rollback button

Saliyalk (talk · contribs) has been doing a spam run on Bollywood-related articles. Could someone with a rollback button please revert any of his edits that haven't already been reverted? He's now been warned. Zora 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka has hit them all. ×Meegs 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh-history - Pushing POV

In Sikhism eating meat is NOT OK or a settled issue. This user is intent on trying to push his pov and trying to present a picture its ok and he uses his website to do this WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM. He has been warned MANY times by other SIKH wikipedians not to do this but he carries on.--Sikh 1 10:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Sikhism is a POV. I have used unbiased verifiable soources to demonstrate Vegetarianism has nothing to do with Sikhism. Regards--Sikh-history 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh-history still pov pushing and vandalising with anon ip

User Sikh-history uses this IP regularly User:62.25.106.209 he has been targeting the same pages on wikipedia--Sikh 1 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the place for this. I note that Sikh-history (talk · contribs) is trying to file a WP:MEDCOM request here, perhaps you could help him with that and join the formal mediation. --Ideogram 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The above fellow has deleted verifiable sources 3 times now. Surely that is against wiki rules.--Sikh-history 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you discuss these matters on your MedCom case, not here. Also I note you mention WP:RFC in your request, but I cannot find the relevant case. --Ideogram 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this appears to be it. I think you will find that many Wikipedia editors will see this and help the two of you agree on the relevant policies. --Ideogram 10:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Sikh 1 for campaigning and incivility. Comments like [26] this one are disturbing and unacceptable, and this is the 3rd WP:ANI thread Sikh 1 has started, despite getting clear feedback the first time. Mangojuice^talk 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that was necessary. --Ideogram 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mango, please considering undoing your block. Proto::► 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that 2 minutes after the comment Mango references and just 5 minutes prior to Mango's block, I left a strongly worded warning on Sikh 1's talk page about the harassment on Sikh-history's talk page. No edits by Sikh 1 occurred between my warning and Mango's block. I would have preferred to wait and see if the warning would suffice. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked. Let's see if Doug's warning will stand. Proto::► 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re : IP 62.25.106.209

Hi this person keeps reverting article Prohibitions in Sikhism. He keeps deleting verifiable fact. What can be done? --Sikh-history 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR and WP:AN3. --Ideogram 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article Prohibitions in Sikhism

Hi, I am having real problems with a Vandal or a group of Vandals who keep deleting, reverting and changing things on the article. The things they keep deleting are refrences and verifiable facts. Please can someone help. I do not know how to follow the three revert rule, as I am not that proficient with wikipedia. Please help.--Sikh-history 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to go to WP:RFPP. Don't bother reverting the page until you get it semi-protected. --Ideogram 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully protected the page from editing for 48 hours to allow some discussion to occur here.--Isotope23 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been fully protected. In anticipation of your next question, you will not be able to edit it until it has been unprotected, even though I know you feel the wrong version has been protected. What you are supposed to do now is try to engage the other parties in a discussion on the article talk page and reach an agreement on the contents of the page. However, my guess is the anon ip's will not discuss. If that proves to be the case, you can ask for the page to be semi-protected and at least the anon ip's will not be able to edit war with you. --Ideogram 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always the wrong version... Just an FYI, semi-protection is only to stop ongoing pure vandalism to an article from many IPs. It should never be used in an edit war between a registered editor and IPs because doing is basically just penalizing one side of an edit war. The idea of protection is to make both sides step back and discuss changes before making changes. On another note, I've started a discussion on this at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism if anyone cares to participate.--Isotope23 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your input.--Sikh-history 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ali doostzadeh

Ali doostzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an obnoxious reverting behaviour, directed against any contextual information that contradicts his POV about Aryens: look especially at his persistent deletions at Scythians and Saka. There is no way to appeal to reason and usually he flouts arguments in the discussion page, or he singles out one detail as a pretext to revert a whole section. His attitude is utterly noncooperative.

BTW, I wonder if Marmoulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of his sockpuppets since this user has an equally bad or worse reverting reputation on basically same subjects, discuss deletions even less and flouts arguments even more.

Rokus01 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this could serve as background information about this reverting incidents: a group of Iranian-nationalist users help each other and give each other advises about how to work together in deleting information that would be against their political goals. Read this welcome-message on the Talk page of Pejman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

"Heja has a long history of de-Persianizing WP. Dont be surprised. When you have clear reputable sources that dont mention any controversy, dont hesitate to engage in reverting these editors. Just be careful of the 3R rule, and keep your cool, and end your talk edits with a cheers:) just like they do. Good luck".--Zereshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now this Pejman47 engaged as well in reverting the Scythians-article, appearing out of the blue and again without giving any reverting reasons. I think this behaviour will compromise the quality of Wikipedia seriously. To me this is a kind of large-scale sockpuppetry. Rokus01 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making baseless accusations and personal attacks. You have a bad history of throwing around personal attacks and accusations([27][28][29]) you should try having civil discussions with other editors instead to avoid edit wars - Marmoulak 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is baseless accusation. The author of the above was asked to quote Mallory on Scythians and he did not. He glossed over the important parts of Mallory about Scythians and he did not know I had the book in my personal library. Instead he is extrapolating some ideas which are not related to Scythians from pages not relavent to Scythians. The discussion is perfectly scientific and there is no personal attack. I am just quoting many sources including Britannica 2007 and Encarta and etc. The above author does not like the sources, so he deletes them, or weakens them and brings his own theories (some from 1911 whereas if I am correct, it is year 2007 now). The above user even thought that Hermatta madeup the term Khotanese Saka..The above user is not a scholar of Scythians and yet he insits on pushing his viewpoints from extrapolating materials from authors who have not claimed what he is claiming. --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Text removal ban: BabyDweezil

Did I just perform a new admin action? Instead of blocking BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for inveterate edit warring and especially text removal, after several warnings, I've given him/her a "text removal ban" for all articles. Please see my message on the user's page.[30] Here are just a few of many, many examples of the user removing sourced text and/or references, after my warnings. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

It's possible that some individual removals are good, but none of them are done in a good way, and the overall pattern is obviously frustrating for other editors, and hampers work on the articles—compare the talkpages. Note also how the same removals are repeated over and over. (If somebody would like to do some 3RR calculations, good luck—I didn't want to muddy the waters with that at the moment.) BabyDweezil has earned a block, in my opinion, and I regard it as merely deferred. If the ban is ignored, he/she gets it, is the way I see it. I'd really like avoid blocking, though, as I take the user to be editing in good faith and with the intention of improving articles. But it was getting so I had to do something. Your thoughts? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I have reviewed your note to me and do take it seriously. However, should you take the time to review some of the history, you will find that I have largely been removing egregious violations of Wiki policy, gross distortions of fact, straight out fabrications and the like, but unfortunately, with the opposition of a pair or so of hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors who often inserted the distorted material in the first place. I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues). Likewise Ive been faced with this bloc working together to restore flagrantly biased and incorrect material, with no more explanation than they arent happy with it being removed. I will try to be more genteel, but please be aware that making sensible arguments and appealing to reason and Wikipedia policies re WP:NPOV and the like generally doesnt suffice vs ideologues. Regards, BabyDweezil 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This appears at first glance to be a content dispute. Perhaps starting dispute resolution may be appropiate. Any type of ban enforcement may will require the support of the community. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block would in order - user has been blocked twice before (note: once by me for a personal attack); is clearly edit-warring, including the use of misleading edit summaries; and is POV-pushing as well, calling reasonable content "distortion" (example). I have no objection to the "text removal ban," but you shouldn't hesitate to move to a block if the behavior continues. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy, just for the record, you blocked me for one single comment in response to an editor who had been cult-baiting, maligning and abusing me incessantly, and continued to, without any action against him, despite my constant complaints. Just for the record. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the involved editors. The problem with the guy is that he invests like 10 seconds to remove something, and then others have to invest a multiple of this to put it back. In some cases, he even agrees that it is properly sourced, but claims it is "out of context". But instead of taking the time to improve the text or write what is missing, he just deleted. Yes, this is frustrating.

So this "selective" ban is a good idea, because it gives him a chance to improve his manners. There are other editors (members of controversial groups) sharing similar viewpoints , but who are able to work things out without "delete first, discuss later". --Tilman 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm another one of the "hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors." BabyDweezil continually deletes well-sourced pertinent material because he personally finds it to be "POV". He repeatedly asserts that by deleting "POV" material he is removing "distortion" from the articles (there are several articles involved) and thus restoring NPOV. His idea of achieving NPOV, as demonstrated about 25 times by my count, seems to be to delete everything that he disagrees with.

He also inserts OR into the text in order to identify clearly to the reader that a particular element of the article is "POV".

He has ravaged Cult apologist to the point where it had to be protected. There is zero chance of achieving consensus and removing the block there because he is adamant about his edits being justified. Now he is starting in on Cult. Tanaats 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his statement above that "I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues)." He doesn't discuss the removal of well-sourced material first. Then when he edit-wars and others don't, Talk discussions are then opened by other editors. He does not achieve majority support in the Talk discussions. He has perhaps two editors who weakly support him. However, on Cult he has recently inspired a new editor who has declared his intention of removing all of the "POV" material in the article. Tanaats 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the protestations that I spend "10 seconds" obliterating Wikipedia pages, the fact is I have spent a good deal of time and effort correcting extensive errors, falsehoods, and outright nonsense in these articles. the 2 editors above are consistently inable to respond civilly to my edits, nor to justify them within Wikipedia guidelines, so they instead have mounted a campaign to vilify me. The loudness of their complaints I believe is in proprtion to the disappoiuntment they may have in having at least a bit of their POV's toned down in the artciles. I stand by all the edits I have made, and am confident they will stand up to scrutiny. The articles were POV pushing horror shows frought with fabrications when I began, so ban me or not, at least they are now slightly improved. BabyDweezil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You could easily get out of this trouble by not "deleting first". The better way to work is "discuss first" / "suggest first". "Be bold" doesn't mean "be bold in deletion". Be constructive, not destructive. The "delete first" attitude not only upsets others, the reconstructing reverts will upset you as well. --Tilman 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bishonen's idea is a "new admin action" only in that it's a bit of mercy and an attempt at avoiding a block.
• Navou, you refer to the policy WP:BAN, which is about bans in the sense of "formal revocations of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia." I can't believe that I yet again have to urge people to know the difference between a block and a ban. Bishonen is using the term "ban" for something different: an informal revocation of the right to perform a certain type of action. To pick irrelevant details out of WP:BAN off the mark. It's a ban on an action, not a ban on a user.
• She's putting a message here to get community input on the new semi-block she's proposing, not to drum up support for a community ban. Administrators block for "I warned you not to do that anymore" altogether too often, and here's Bishonen trying to avoid blocking someone by working out a new alternative. She's saying that she wants input on telling a user, "Don't go around cutting large paths with a lawnmower to fit a point of view." The implied "or else" is "or you'll be blocked." The user is clearly ripe for a block, as Mr Darcy points out, and the user's intransigent response here suggests that he's (Dweazel Zappa is male) dedicated and devoted to repeating this action. He/she is getting a little extra AGF from Bishonen, that's all, and she's asking the rest of the community to comment. Geogre 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that the user is not banned from editing Wikipedia. I understand that the user is not banned from editing, or further editing a set of articles, or area. I understand the technical aspect of a block; the difference between block and ban. However, if I understood the message correctly, just banned from performing a certain action. If I have applied the definition of ban inappropriately, then forgive me. I understood the potential for this informal revocation to be enforced by a block, if the ban message was placed by an admin who has the technical ability to place a block. Making it a de facto formal revocation. Although the policy does not deliberately define this action, unless I have missed something, I think I applied it correctly. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you are on record as disagreeing with it? If so, are you therefore agreeing with just blocking the user, or would you prefer that no block take place and that this situation go to RFC, then RFM, then RFAR? At some point during all of that, I assume an RFCU would have to be taken, too. I agreed with Bishonen's position, myself, because it minimized the disruption without all of that, but I did want to see what others thought. Geogre 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not entirely, I would like to see the user providing positive contributions, and the integrity of the encyclopedia preserved. Hopefully both can be served. I do not at this time, see RfC, or RFAR is necessary (and can probably be avoided) and don't understand how RFCU applies (help me out here). My best recommendation would be to talk to the editor about the behavior. Informal mediation may be of some use. DR should be conducted at the lowest level possible, when possible. Ultimately serving the project. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, how am I being "intransigent." Because I have my own opinion of the matter? Is that the defintion of "intransigence" here? BabyDweezil 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Fallibroome High School and subsequent vandalism of my talk page, as a reaction to the reveral of the first vandalism by myself

Iamaacountname and anonymous user User:80.41.86.208 have engaged in a "more advanced" form of vandalism of the article for Fallibroome High School. In short. The anon user first vandalised the article, then Iamaacountname appeared to revert it, but at the same time as this, introduced a new incidence of vandalism to the account. This second vandalism could not have been done in good faith, since it involved uploading a new photo with which to replace the school shield, which was done by Iamaacountname just prior to the apparent reversal of vandalism. The photo appears to be solely constructed to be used in some vandalism attempts, and the non-anon user's only account activity is to vandalise Fallibroome High School and upload this photo.

I corrected the entire vandalism, and placed notices about warning them of their blatant vandalism on their respective talk pages. This has resulted in this anonymous user (User:80.41.86.208) replacing my talk page with one million digits of pi. The non-anon user has not had any retaliatory action taken against their pages by this anon user.

I wonder if (a) both the user and anon-address should be immediately blocked, and (b) whether the image should be immediately deleted. I did try to go through the correct process to ask for deletion of the image, but the reason did not appear, so i have included it on the image's talk page. I also wonder if my talk page can be protected? I had to protect my user page from very similar retaliatory action after I corrected previosu vandalism of this article page. I could not see how this kind of vandalism should be reported except by a message here, and my apologies if it is in the wrong place.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP address for a week. Sneeky vandalism like this shows for-knowledge that the action was a problem. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• (conflict) Sent to AIV. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 19:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not sure how this could obviously fit in with the requirements of AIV, and I'm not sure what you mean by your message starting (conflict). Was it in any way inapprorpiate to post the message here?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No not at all. What I mean by conflict, was that before I finished typing my comment, someone added a comment before I finished, edit conflict. Not directed at you at all, just means, I started my comment, before someone placed theirs and finished theirs before I finished mine. This is the place for incidents, especially if you are unsure that it goes somewhere else. You did the correct thing. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation. It all becomes more clear now!  DDStretch  (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JACOB HANSON

User:JACOB HANSON has vandalized the egg page again. WLU 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals aren't reported here - if he vandalizes again, report it to WP:AIV. --Coredesat 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Identical vandalism from multiple unrelated IP addresses

Since 4 Feb 2007 there have been three identical anonymous edits to The Family Circus which clearly constitute vandalism. IP addresses in question are: 216.248.224.26 75.39.197.40 70.245.126.202

IPVandal always adds phrase "No one really know why they keep on making it if everyone agrees in the fact that it is not funny in any meaning of the word." to the end of the introduction.

Vandal also appears to be actively screwing with other pages, especially House of Leaves. Irene Ringworm 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV policy changed?

This is more of a question or a request for clarification than anything. Has the policy at AIV changed significantly in the last few months? I reported this obvious vandalism-only account Jwgray (talk · contribs). Three edits and all of them are pretty clearly some kid. The listing was deleted with edit summary "hasn't been warned sufficiently and hasn't edited in three hours". I've reported blatant vandalism-only accounts there in the past, but it seems like all of a sudden folks are refusing to block based on circumstances.

It seems silly that an obvious vandalism-only account can't be blocked simply because of "insufficient warnings". Can't admins make a judgement call and block accounts that are obviously out to casually vandalize the project and provide nothing helpful? I really don't think any of these edits [40] could be thought of any anyone as "mistakes" or in good faith, and I doubt that there are very many people out there who would bother to do this kind of thing without understanding that it's wrong. Any thoughts? TheQuandry 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it varies from person to person. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to block someone regardless of the warnings if the infraction is so atrocious (for example, I've blocked a couple of harassment accounts posting to someone's talk page without so much as dropping them a line, just a block-on-sight). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User Ballog

Ballog is already mentioned here regarding Afd conduct, and I did mention this briefly there but I think a new section is in order.

He's repeatedly reverting to his version of Billy Byars Jr. which multiple editors have said is a violation of WP:BLP. Because Dhartung !voted to delete his article he's nominated Clint Hartung for deletion, stating "There were over 16,0000 people who have played Major Lague Baseball. Having the same last name as an editor does not meet the Wiki guidelines for notablity". This is clearly in bad faith.

He's also sent me an email after I left a BLP note on his page stating "All information for Billy Byars article has been sourced and referenced. Per Wiki guidlines please do nto unfounded accusattions without citing specific violations. Please be tolerant of others or you rick being banned and/or blocked."

Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... well looking at the previous version it appears to have huge tracts of ancillary information that is trivial to the subject as well as an "essay"-esque writing style... not to mention only part of it appears to be sourced and there is a legit WP:BLP concern here. I'm watching and if this continues to be subject to a revert war I will protect it.--Isotope23 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy keeps spouting "per Wiki guidelines" without saying which ones he's talking about, and then referring to ones who do as "Wikigeeks". I don't predict any useful contributions from this guy in the future. JuJube 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the situation.--Isotope23 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He called "accusing" him of being belligerent (he obviously is) a personal attack and repeated his same "review Wiki guidelines" drivel. I don't think he's going to change. JuJube 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a last warning about the WP:BLP violations. Jkelly 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's still doing it. What's especially funny is that he accuses other editors of misrepresenting him and then writes a whole section doing exactly that! JuJube 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited the article since the warning. Jkelly 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears I am am being stalked. I have repeatedly asked JuJube to refrain from personal attaks and to keep to discussing the article. I always use 'please" and "thank you" but injust the past 5 minutes JuJube has left the following posts:

The only person risking getting blocked here is you. There are already two reports about you on. JuJube

That would be helpful, instead of simply reverting without discussion, being belligerent and overall risking getting blocked. Stop. JuJube

He's not going to do that, because only "wikigeeks" cite policies. JuJube

And this has anything to do with the article how? JuJube

More nitpicking. But that's hardly a surprise. JuJube

Yes. Now take your own advice, and stop doing it! JuJube

This type of behaivor is intolerant and unproductive. Please have it stopped. Ballog 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Isotope23 I do agree with your decision on the baseball player Clint Hartung. I would never have believed that just by appearing in the major leagues meats the notability requirements. I'll probably suggest that be changed. Ballog 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

These were left in the next 5 minutes:

Wrong again. When you state that you yourself have done "Two years of research", that is the definition of original research. Stating otherwise is more of the disruption you are quickly becoming known for. JuJube

Nitpicking. This is just wikilawyering in an attempt to make other editors look bad. JuJube

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. JuJube

• Since Ballog's only relevant edits are to the "Billy Byars Jr." article and its AfD, a stalking accusation seems a bit frivolous. JuJube 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Could you provide diffs to assist administrators in evaluating your case? Thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
This is not about diffs, at least as how I understand the definition of diffs. This is about user JuJube leaving me numerous personal attack messages on my User Page and Article Discussion Page in a period of about 10 minutes. I have asked JuJube to talk about the article but I just receive more and more personal attacks and the threat of being blocked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, Ballog 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

There's already another section about this with plenty of details. One Night In Hackney 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the article, Ballog, I am interested in you ceasing your personal attacks of those who are voting to have it deleted. JuJube 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting how you characterize anything remotely critical of your actions (such as my rebuttals of your comments against other editors, which you've listed above out of context) as "personal attacks", but your scathing attacks on the competency of editors such as Dhartung are just fine and dandy in your book. Double standards anybody? JuJube 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
Need I say more? I'll let the evidence speak for itself and hope that the type of behaivor demonstrated above can be stopped. Ballog 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Ballog, just a question - what is a personal attack? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415
To answer your question I will paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice who, when asked "what is the definition of pornography?" answered, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it!" Well, I may not be able to define a personal attack but I know it when I see it. And I believe most people do too.
Ballog 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Um, yeah. WP:NPA. As you are so fond of saying, "read Wiki guidelines". JuJube 00:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

{replying to Ballog after edit conflict} Wikipedia:No personal attacks is where I would go to learn about what counts as a personal attack. I do not believe that any of JuJube's comments could be considered personal attacks based on this policy. Heimstern Läufer 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You both (JuJube & Ballog) need to back off a bit here. You both have been incivil to each other and I have no idea if you are trying to goad each other into crossing the line here, but just cool it.--Isotope23 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll stop. I just frankly got a little pissed at the AfD where this guy spent entire paragraphs mocking RJASE1 and Dhartung. JuJube 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23
I think it's best if people remember the following Wiki guidelines:
Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
Keeping this is mind, people will concentrate on an article's content and not the author. In this way, we can all improve Wikiworld. Ballog 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Ballog

Okay, so you've violated policies too. Please stop this, all of you who are acting disruptively. Your behaviour is not acceptable. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

commercial mention policy question

O hail, mighty Administrators-

In lurking on Wikipedia, I came across an Article on a current TV show, in which is stated: "Downloadable episodes are available for purchase at the iTunes Store".

Given the popularity of iTunes, I wasn't bold enough to delete it peremptorily, without first checking with Your Majesties to see if such a commercial notation is indeed proscribed. Kindly advise JGHowes 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As a non-administrator (and ignoring the sarcasm), I think it should be gone as advertising for iTunes. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Context? If it is randomly placed in the lead for the article, it could be spam, but if it is in a section discussing its DVD releases and what have you, I think it would be fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is Endurance (TV series) and the line appears mid-way through the article under "Other production notes" discussing the show's past networks, etc. (by the way, no offensive sarcasm was intended, just trying to lighten things up with a little humor given all the anger and angst on these pages!) JGHowes 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say removal would be appropriate in this instance. It does not seem to add to the article. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV -- regarding User:Bill Clark

• Bill Clark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "leaving wikipedia," but also leaving a wake of article blanking as some sort of point... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scientizzle (talk • contribs).

  You may want to bring this up at WP:AN/I, instead? Luna Santin 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith here and put the blankings down to Bill Clark trying to remove the spam concerns from his edits RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I assume good faith, but I almost wonder if a preventative block isn't in order... it appears he is speedy tagging or removing content from articles he contributed to and while I don't question that he feels he is doing the right thing, it is creating alot of work for others. That said I also don't want to do something that might be perceived as a "kick in the ass on the way out the door"...--Isotope23 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with a preventative block as I thought he had already gone, maybe just a few hours though, just so its not as Isotope23 put it a "kick in the ass on the way out the door" RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I issued a 24 hr block and tried my best to explain it to Bill Clark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is absolutely preventative and not punative so if anyone disagrees and/or has a conversation with him that makes this block moot I have no objection to shortening or lifting it (or this being boldly done by another admin). My whole goal here is to stop any content removal and or personal attacks from continuing that this point when the editor is very obviously upset.--Isotope23 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Per a conversation with the editor on his talk page, he is done blanking content and I've removed the block.--Isotope23 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A troll and possible sockpuppet - User:63.17.56.54

• 63.17.56.54 (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks and adding/spamming questionable links. Please investigate. Thank you. Levine2112 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

• Levine2112 (talk · contribs) has removed reliable references. Please investigate. Has made poor arguements and false statements about me. 63.17.56.54 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I encourage the admins to investigate this fully. Thank you. Levine2112 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply to this and the above thread... if this is in regards to the Life University article, then the forum link should not be in the article per WP:EL. If there are additional issues here that are not article content issues, please reply here with a diff showing the behavior in question.--Isotope23 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It starts here and gets progressively worse and more abusive.

• [[41]]
• [[42]]
• [[43]]
• [[44]]
• [[45]]
• [[46]]

Can we curb and/or put an end to this behavior? Thanks. I appreciate your time, Isotope23! Levine2112 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing issues here. That IP user is right part of the time and wrong part of the time, which makes it a tie = you're both wrong. This is a POV pushing contest from both parties. That user seems to be a newbie who doesn't understand some policies here. -- Fyslee (First law) 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That user seems to be a newbie. Pay attention to the editing skills. Levine2112 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying an argument is "poor", while not a particularly helpful argument, isn't really something I would concern myself over. Calling someone a troll and telling them to get a life are a bit more problematic and the IP has been warned about this. The rest is content dispute and perhaps an RfC or RfM would be helpful. Please see WP:DR.--Isotope23 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Levine2112 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've semiprotected Life University for a little while. Bucketsofg 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is wise too. Levine2112 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your generalized claims such as "link farm" to remove the link is not convincing. FGT2 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MinaretDk (talk · contribs)

The user above has requested that their recent block be reviewed a bit further, and his talk page has been fully protected so that he is unable to request that he be unblocked under the conditions that he only edit to a RFC against another user he intended to make for a week. I have no opinion on the matter myself, but the block for a week and the subsequent protection of his talk page just seemed to be something that should perhaps be reviewed by a larger group of administrators, so I'm bringing this here. Cowman109^Talk 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is clearly aiming for a community ban, just judging from the talk page alone. Looking even slightly deeper, I see more reasons to confirm the block and some justification (not taken) to extend it. I think a week as a defensive block to allow the user to calm down seems fine. IMHO. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist attacking User:Jerrypp772000 again

His new attack/action of assuming bad faith directed toward Jerrypp772000 apparently has been brought to a new level, as it even now contains vulgar language. He refuses to accept any advice from numerous users, myself included, who had conflict with him about controversial editing. He was warned before and was reported once in here (but no actions were taken at all). Also, I'm positive that he had the experience of being blocked for personal attacks, and it is only getting worse. Vic₂₂₆ 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing user RfC no? I would recommend bringing this up there.--Isotope23 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'clast getting out of hand

Some POV pushing has now gotten out of hand.[47] POV disputes are one thing, but when it leads to gross misuse of abusive language during an attempt to delete external links that express opposing POV, then we're dealing with POV suppression, leaving an article unbalanced and controlled by those who want it to express only one POV. NPOV is about presenting all significant POV, not suppressing one to favor another.

The foul and abusive language that is quoted is from an osteopath who takes the same position about the article as I'clast, IOW opposition to a good article they don't like. The article itself is perfectly fine, well-referenced, and presents another POV than those who use such language. We shouldn't reward them.

I suggest you check out his edit summaries as well [48] during all these attacks on articles from the great Quackwatch website.[49][50][51][52][53] A bit of simple math might be in place here: On what side of the fence has someone placed themselves when they are anti anti-quackery? (See "double negative" for the answer....;-) -- Fyslee (First law) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Fyslee may be misunderstadning the "foul language" I'clast inserted into the talk page. I'clast is simply quoting from the link which he deleted and thus providing an example of why this is a poor external link for the Osteopathy article. Levine2112 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I do mention it above, but I'll explain it more here. The quote is from a response to the article, not the article itself, although it is in a box on the same page. (At Quackwatch they usually collect related material on the same page, including selected reader responses.) It is symptomatic of the anti-Quackwatch POV suppression that's going on here, that it was this quote that was chosen and used as an excuse for deleting the link to a good article. It is an echo of the original foul attack made by the irate osteopath! It's certainly not a Wikipedia-relevant policy argument. Whatever the case, it shows that the real motivation for the deletion is POV suppression of opposing POV, a practice that is in conflict with NPOV policy. Editors should ensure and enable all POV to be represented. They must not suppress them. -- Fyslee (First law) 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But then I'clast was pointing out the opinion of someone who disagreed with the opinion of author of the linked article. So whose opinion are you accusing him of trying to surpress? Levine2112 02:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack by User:Patchouli

I just found that User:Patchouli had made a strong personal attack during an AfD to the editors of that article implying they are spies of the Intelligent services. (This is an strong attack in Persian, but I don't know Its status in English Language).--Pejman47 21:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, see his/her contributions ( [[54],...]he was "super active" in recent months pushing his POV regarding Shia Islam in Tens of Articles without getting noticed, I seems that putting things back needs several users without any real life. --Pejman47 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to the AfD, please. JuJube 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I forgot [55]/. --"This article indicates otherwise. As a result, I conclude it was concocted by the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) in Qom."Pejman47 22:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please see these too: [56] "I thought you were a cleric in the Iranian government." and this [57] "They were added by User:Farhoudk who gainsays being a mullah. Discuss with User:Farhoudk who has made a useful contribution"--Pejman47 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

His edits were also caused the article of Ali Khamenei to be locked. As I said He was "super active" for months, without getting noticed. see his contributions. --Pejman47 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics

An AfD on Real Social Dynamics was recently held, the closing admin (Royalguard11 (talk · contribs)) closing it as delete. He then apparently received a message from someone offering a new citation, and he decided that this meant that he should change his decision, go back and edit the closed AfD, and undelete the article (presumably he thought that, if those participating in the AfD had seen the new evidence, they'd have changed their minds).

Sorry, but I believe your analyse to be wrong. What secondsight did was point out parts of the discussion that Royalguard11 had overlooked. So realising this he changed his mind. Nothing wrong there. And if you disagree the correct way to deal with it would be to bring up another AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that that was not only out of process, but also not excusable on grounds of avoiding unnecessary bureacracy, etc. I therefore deleted the article (as illicitly recreated after an AfD), and prevailed upon Royalguard11 to go to WP:DRV. He did, but within twenty-four hours, and before there had been a chance for real discussion, Coredesat (talk · contribs) closed the discussion and undeleted the article again. No explanation was offered.

I've left a message at his Talk page asking what's going on, but what do other admins think? Is this acceptable, and if so, what's the justification for it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been a bad boy Mel. Edit-warring again. :(. Royalguard closed the discussion and upon other user providing reliable sources and evidence to establish the notability of the subject, he undid his prior closure and kept the article. If it should have been kept even on DRV, why did you bring it here? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

True. But every single article on the so-called "seduction community" is, without question, vanispamcruftisement :o) Guy (Help!) 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken some stabs at solving this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we should do what Newyorkbrad does. Take the article to AfD again, after a considerable time-period. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington didn't understand my point or question, and slightly saddened that he thinks that one revert of an edit to a closed AfD makes an edit war. Still, perhaps someone else might read what I wrote, and help me on this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just meant that you should wait for some more time and then try to go for an AfD again. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that I believe is your best move, drop this and give it few months rest before trying to delete again. Mathmo ^Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be great advice if I'd asked what I should do next — but I didn't. I asked whether it was acceptable for an admin to go against what he'd said was consensus at an AfD because he had personally changed his mind in the light of new evidence, and whether it was OK for another admin to close a DRV request early when this had happened. If the answers to these questions are yes, I'd like to know the reasoning (though whatever the reasoning, it seems to me to tarnish the process). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the admin was completely right to close the DRV early for reason they have already stated. Mathmo ^Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. As a general comment, circumstances sometimes change, and AfD consensus should never override common sense. In this specific case, the correct thing to have done in the would have been to reopen the AFD, which is what I will do now. (The current page looks like a delete to me. I've defluffed and despammed it and I still don't think it's a keep.) I'm not sure DRV is appropriate, given that we aren't trying to overturn an AFD, but to get it enforced. In either case, why isn't there a note on the RSD talk page mentioning the AFD and the DRV? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The DRV page was an issue, because I'd redeleted the page (as recreated after AfD) and persuaded User:Royalguard11 to request undeletion. I don't know why he didn't explain at the Talk page what he'd done; I didn't notice that, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wish we could always back up and have another chance at things! Yet another reason that wikipedia is better than real life... Regards, Ben Aveling 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If I make a mistake, I generally go back and fix it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New shenanigans

I've just discovered that Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) has cut the new part of the re-opened AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination). Fair enough, but that removed a number of contributors' comments, and he didn't bother to tell anyone he'd done it. Many editors involved were obviously watching the page, so went back to add themselves again, but two apart from me seem not to have seen what happened. I've now informed them, but this is becoming a farce. If I thought that Royalguard11 was actually trying to skew the result, I'd be furious, and taking this elsewhere — but so far as I can see, it's just carelessness and poor judgement (and discourtesy). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the cut-paster of the new stuff to the new AFD, not Royalguard, and if I missed any comments it was my fault. When I came across it, it was blank. I was notified by Royalguard. I agree that this excess procedural nonsense is baggage at this point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have got the detail wrong — I checked the history, but must have misread it. My concern wasn't so much the cut and pasting, though, but the opening of a new AfD without notifying participants. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am being harassed

I have been threatened with a ban by User:Will Beback over these two edits: [58][59]. He said that these edits reflect "LaRouche-derived theories." After WB deleted my edit to Free Trade ([60],) it was restored the next day by User:Petri Krohn ([61].) I looked on Petri Krohn's talk page for a similar threat from WB, but found none. I don't know why WB is after me, but I am asking someone to step in and say something to him. I attempted to start mediation, but he refused. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• it was restored the next day by User:Petri Krohn

And immediately deleted by someone else, so no point in leaving a message, is there? Is your complaint that Will Beback didn't have Free trade staked out 24/7, ready to pounce on every edit there? Because that's the only message I'm taking away from your complaint. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? My complaint is that these were perfectly good edits, and WB threatened to ban me. This is outrageous. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HonourableSchoolboy, please learn to read what others are saying. Will Beback, did not threaten to ban you. He warned you that an edit war at Free Trade could lead to a banning. Which is true but it's not a threat. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

these were perfectly good edits A paragraph sourced to a Tripod website is pretty much the furthest from being a "perfectly good edit" as you can get, especially on an academic subject. The word "outrageous" does come to mind, but not in the way that you seem to think. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Killed in action

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) is disrupting the page Killed in action as evident by the history, who seems to think he owns the article and is reverting all attempts by other editors to improve it by making it in line with the WP:MOS. So far he has used two meatpuppets/sockpuppets (one was admitted on the talk page, I believe, where he said he would ask a friend to help him out), KSCHO (talk · contribs) and Andrewrhchen (talk · contribs). I don't feel the user should be blocked indefinitely or anything like that as he seems to be acting in good faith, but he doesn't seem to be listening to reason. I'm therefore bringing this issue here. Cowman109^Talk 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And it appears he has just broken WP:3rr by reverting multiple users once more. Could someone please look into this situation? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point I really don't think he's operating for the good of Wikipedia. He has his preferred version and he's going to do everything he can to keep reverting to it. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think he's acting in good faith, but it's just that it's a disruptive good faith that he does not understand. I believe the user also has a conflict of interest as he mentioned somewhere that he is either a member or a founder of one of the foundations for the relatives for those killed in action, so this is a sensitive issue. Cowman109^Talk 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

71Demon, personal attacks

71Demon (talk · contribs) was blocked a while back for personal attacks, abusive sockpuppetry, and image violations. These blocks were subsequently reviewed on unblock-en-l and were not lifted. He persisted in referring to these blocks as "spite blocks", language he was informed was inappropriate (see [62], he was informed of this repeatedly and the language was removed repeatedly). After returning from the block, 71Demon archived his page and then changed the contents of the archive to once again include "spite block" in these three edits. I left a warning on the user's discussion page here and was informed here by 71Demon once again that I blocked him for spite, etc. etc. This user has been told over and over again, both on Wikipedia and on unblock-en-l, that these personal attacks are unacceptable. I believe it would be inappropriate for me to block the user again and request that another admin look into this matter. --Yamla 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Level-headed editors, especially admins with knowledge of relevant guidelines, are needed over at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names[]], where the atmosphere is becoming a bit febrile. It's reached the point where verifiably perfectly respectable foreign names like User:Shitomy are being jumped on because they contain rude bits... It's very likely to alienate new Users who arrive in good faith only to have their name essentially rejected because some users think that it's vulgar. Some new eyes and fresh voices might help. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly related, but the upsurge in longer and more unusual names must be due to, in part at least, a lack of shorter, simpler names and now we have the usurp policy, it might be time to think about clearing out all the unused usernames which could be usurped under the present policy and free them up for new users to register. -- Heligoland 00:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Freddy Krueger

It would be much appreciated if a few more eyes are on this account- the user was blocked but returned as User:Freddy Krueger Version Good, and claims to have renounced vandalism, but he says he knows he will be permablocked if he vandalizes again. I took a chance and unblocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Mystic Angel andUser:Daddy1234

Creating nonsense articles containing email addresses and real life addresses. I can't tell if they're really the people they're claiming to be, or if they're trying to create problems for other people with the names on the articles, but at any rate, they're claiming to be 8th graders, which is problematic for revealing personal information about minors. Corvus cornix 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:209.180.119.10

Just reporting this anon. IP for possible vandalism and reprisals. He edited the owned article "just so" to prove that he "pwned" the article. I reverted it and issued a warning. A few hours later, he made another subtle change to the article (from "leet" to the less-readable "l33t" (that is, less-readable for those not in the know)) and then "pwned" my user page. I issued another warning for the vandalism on my user page, and also gave WP:DISRUPT. Note: I'm not yet fully aware of the reasons behind this, but the talk page of this anon IP address is semiprotected. From what I can gather so far, he appears to have been doing this as a matter of habit, because of the edits he has done to other pages before. --- Tito Pao 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer and Cyrus Farivar

AmiDaniel closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination) with a delete, but User:Phil Sandifer ignored it and restored the article, i redeleted it but he restored it again citing that Jimbo wanted the article to be kept in August 2005, afd has changed alot since then. I dont want to wheelwar further. Any thoughts? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt. As a note, you aren't wheel warring but instead upholding consensus; you should be proud of it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cyrus Farivar. Dragons flight 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change.. So can articles. Jimbo's 2005 statement wouldn't particularly be of much essence now. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And how a delete came of this makes no sense. I can't endorse Phil not going to DRV with this, but what reason would he have to trust it. We've gone completely insane. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Converted to a standard deletion review. Let's centralized discussion on whether it should be deleted or undeleted, instead of having it there, here, WP:AN, and the article's talk page... As to the other issues, let's keep them off deletion review. GRBerry 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nationalist is getting out of hand.

User:Nationalist is getting way to out of hand. He has been banned 4 times, [63].

Basically he has a political view point which he is pushing into wikipedia articles. The Chinese naming conventions clearly state to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "Taiwan (Republic of China)". But this user is continuously (after being banned still) changing every possible thing he can find to suit his political view. The naming conventions say not to use Taiwan Province, but he still insists of placing it there.

He is becoming very one-viewed and is continually removing users comments asking him for input on his user talk page, simply removing it. [64] [65] [66]

He is also continually moving pages (over redirects sometimes as well), without asking for a view. [67] [68]

He has also been identified as a sockpuppet user[69], and is continually removing the tag from his user page [70] [71], or trying to obscure it. [72] [73]

I am asking for some kind of Admin intervention ASAP. I'm not the only one facing problems with him, other users like, User:Jerrypp772000, User:Vic226, User:Jiang, and User:Yankees76 have all had similar conflicts with him.--Borgarde (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Nationalist's actions, but I've never been involved. I've blocked him for a month.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threat posted to user's page.

I was alerted to an apparent death threat here; User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All

It was removed, but here is the version in history; [74]

It appears to have been posted by a single-purpose account. Can somebody please do a checkuser on this account? I think this sort of thing ought to be taken quite seriously.

Thanks!

BenBurch 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to request a checkuser, WP:RFCU will set you straight. However, checkuser is not for fishing out users, a proper request is to find sock puppets backed up with evidence to support the need for the CU. So I wouldn't bother there. The user might be in need of indef blocking, but I'm differing that to another admin as I'm not quite sure what to make of the post. Teke ^(talk) 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What was the death threat? Usually a Death Threat includes a threat and all I saw from the diffs was a movie recommendation. I haven't seen the movie though, but it stars Mel Gibson so pretty mainstream. Is there some pop culture reference that I'm missing that says "go watch Mel Gibson" is translated to "I'm going to kill you?" --Tbeatty 04:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Very strange behavior by Monkey C Monkey P (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure what to make of this person. He doesn't seem to be making any constructive edits... instead he goes along, reverting people's edits, and then immediately reverting his own edit. Virtually ALL of his contributions have been reverting of one kind or another [75]. Furthermore, I'm not sure what this is all about [76]. What is this and why is it protected?

I asked him about his strange double-revert edits to a page I watch and he responded by blanking his talk [77]. What is going on? TheQuandry 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)