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

User:One Night In Hackney's signature

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) has today started to sign his name with IRA at the end (linked to his talk page)- see [1] for example. I asked him why he was doing this- but haven't managed to get a direct response yet. I don't think it is appropiate to have the name of a terrorist organisation in an editor's signature. WP:SIG states that a signature must conform to the username policy. It clearly states that Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime) are not allowed. Astrotrain 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organisation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy. This is just what we need. One Night In Hackney, is it possible that you could be urged to voluntarily desist from this practice rather than bring about controversy and divisiveness regarding it? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He was asked about it on his talk page. He did not respond positivly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I engaged in polite discussion with someone who has spent days trolling several pages I am involved in, then he continued it past the point of relevant discussion. For example see the discussion on the Ivor Bell talk page and the related discussion here. Please can someone actually clarify that if the author, title and ISBN number of a book have been provided that is everything that is required for an editor to verify a reference, there is no requirement that the source is available online. Are books not reliable sources any more? One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with your WP:SIG how?--Isotope23 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you maybe give a response as to why you are using IRA in your signature? You must know that people will associate that acronym with a terrorist organisation that is outlawed in the United Kingdom? Astrotrain 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He should keep it, why should he change it because Astrotrain doesnt like it, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation.--Vintagekits 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a date, to make it clear which IRA he's talking about? Many people will think he means a modern paramilitary organisation. There are better ways to educate people about the history of the IRA.DanBeale 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Isotope23, I feel it is important to put this situation into perspective. The editor in question has done nothing but troll me for several days, this is nothing but more of the same in my opinion. In reply to Astrotrain, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See Harrods#History. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just needlessly divisive. Regarding the contentions of trolling etc, this should be resulting in a user RFC or an AN/I report to deal with it.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the IRA is a terrorist group or not. This is about the arguments about the nature of the IRA that having this in a sig will inevitably cause.

Does this disrupt Wikipedia? Yes. Is there any good reason to have this in a sig? I'm having trouble seeing any, and the implicit "it's my sig, I can do what I want" don't seem to outweigh "this project is here to build an encyclopedia, please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this is laugable - whatever wikipedia says, the majority of people with the UK see the IRA as a terrorist organisation - it's presence in a signature will only cause unrest and problems - it should be removed ASAP. --Fredrick day 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What's truly laughable on Wikipedia are all the self-important editors running around talking about "disruption" and "problems" when there isn't any. Where are the British citizens wailing and moaning about this user's signature? They, uh, don't exist. Like in so many other "controversies," the actual DISRUPTION is caused by mealy-mouthed editors pulling their own chains and getting into tizzies over NOTHING. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this is helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You trying to draw attention to yourself there MoeLarryAndJesus? You are pretty close to a WP:USERNAME block as is.--Isotope23 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"British Citizens" - well I perfer english gentleman myself... --Fredrick day 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat Fredrick. My signature was temporarily removed (by me) at 21:42 anyway as a gesture of good faith while this is ongoing, and I have since replaced it with something else entirely so we can hopefully draw a line under this whole sorry saga. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original ("IRA") and revised ("1916") are fairly clear WP:POINT violations. Wikipedia is not a forum for one's political viewpoints. In good faith, per WP:SIG (surprised that isn't policy, btw) and given that the sig suffix is likely to cause disruption, ONIH might consider getting rid of it as an easy solution. Badgerpatrol 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1916 isn't "likely to cause disruption", because people won't know what he means by it unless they have prior awareness of this discussion. Lots of things happened in 1916. --Random832 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is crystal clear that the only reason he's doing it is to annoy Astrotrain, which is both childish and petulant. And the IRA in Wikipedia are not a terrorist origanisation, assomebody has a bee in their bonnet, but IRA should really be redirecting to the Provisional IRA article, which is what it is most commonly denotes. And the Provos were / are terrorists. Proto ► 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Badgerpatrol that this looks like a pretty clear WP:POINT violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. When one's actions are under scrutiny, it's not usually helpful to gratuitously antagonize one's colleagues. Raymond Arritt 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the links ONIH provided, regarding on-going content and citation disputes with AstroTrain. While I'm not thrilled with the IRA sig, I do think that this is not a fully 'good faith' submission of a problem, but rather a way for AT to distract ONIH from the disputes. I think that the 1916 is a perfect compromise, and the two should both be focusing on content. This is pretty much a showboating case of system gaming, not unlike Astrotrain's argument that since he can't see a copy of a book to verify it, it's not a clear reference, and shouldn't count. I support the 1916 signature compromise. ThuranX 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support the 1916 sig compromise. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought IRA was an acronym of 'I Ran Away'.4kinnel 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblocks

I unblocked. I did so because HighinBC was very much engaged in a polemic over the issue, and I felt that it was incorrect for him to block. Additionally, I felt that there was a preponderence of opinion here that a block, especially given the controversy, would be antagonistic. That's why I unblocked. It just seemed to be a hasty and incorrect action to perform a block. The angrier you are, the less you should reach for the button. Geogre 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly was not, what are you talking about? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I increased the block for personal attacks "fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"[2], not sure what polemics you are referring to, but that block was very justified, and I think your unblock is inappropriate. Even if you undid the first 24 hours for harassment the 24 hours I gave for personal attacks is clearly justified. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that people are acting without having all the facts. Geogre and Bishonen rushing to unblock... because they are apparently unaware of the fact that Worldtraveller scrambled his own password and can't log in whether unblocked or not. Geogre making false claims in his unblock summary about 'involved admins' not making judgments... I wasn't involved until I made my judgment. Claims that there is no cause for block here despite statements like "witless moron", "fuckwits", and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do" coming from WT. You're wrong here. He was blatantly violating civility policy and refusing to stop or pursue a less disruptive means of resolving the dispute. --CBD 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's clear to you that I offered to unblock without being aware that WT had scrambled his password, you're in a fog. Please consider what a block is, and what it does. How it affects users. It's not a mere enforced wikibreak, it's a slap in the face. It's a shock. It's extremely humiliating for established, productive users. It's permanent dirt in your log. Unblocking is a gesture worth making regardless of whether the person can log in or not. Please give your imagination a little more exercise, CBD. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

But there was the definite appearance of f---wittedness. In England, at least, that's a gentle rebuke for dim-witted behaviour or cluelessness. Look what these guys did. WT is one of the best editors in the Wiki. I think he gets in the top ten for featured articles. We should be doing everything we can to encourage editors like this to stay. By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel of this sort, and contributes nothing at all to Wikipedia. And he engages in this highly arbitrary action against a greatly respected editor, who naturally reacts rather badly. He leaves about messages over a 1 month period, generally courteous and reasonable-minded, and the one called Shane rudely refuses to reply. After leaving two more messages, he gets blocked. Now that's really, well, I won't say the word. edward (buckner) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to take a wikibreak now, I have interrupted it to deal with this accusation of sorts. I will look in on this later, but I will leave you folks with the assurances that my limited dealings with this person weeks ago have no bearing on the personal attack block I did, and I think it is a out of line to undo a block that was given for clear violation of the WP:NPA policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA has no penalties. There is no such thing as "a personal attack block". If there was, it goes without saying that it would be inappropriate to block for an attack against yourself ("fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"). This is a bad day for trigger-happy admins. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you saying that a user who has had several warnings about civility and personal attacks cannot be blocked for it? That is nonsense, this user was warned over and over to stop personal attacks, it is a blockable offense to ignore policy after several warnings. Do you really think that my name being included in the insult clouded my judgment so much that I saw an insult where there was none? That is a clear insult. The block was justified, it was not due to any sort of bias, and I resent the implication. NPA has no proscribed penalties, but it is subject to blocking. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[After edit conflicts]

I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment; all that has been shown is that, having been the subject of an unfair and unjustified block, he pursued the question with the blocking admin, hoping for justice. Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation, and that certain other admins have no more notion of justice than does a pile of bricks. He lost his temper in the face of that (being human), and said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were. In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him. How very edifying. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay, tell it like it is, Mel. edward (buckner) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, that's a grossly untrue representation of the situation:

1. "said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were" - So you are endorsing as true his claim that InShaneee is a "witless moron"? If so, at this time I need to warn you about our WP:NPA policy.
2. "I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment" - If you don't consider the numerous diffs supplied to be proof then we differ on the meaning of harassment... but then you apparently think the "witless moron" comment was ok.
3. "Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation" - A false accusation. InShanee DID respond.
4. "In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him." - He was blocked by me. My 'hounding' of him consisted of a single message telling him to stop harassing InShaneee and follow DR or he would be blocked. I did not hound him. Your implication that I both orchestrated (through continual hounding) and executed his block is a completely unjustified accusation.

What I'm seeing is alot of people who like Worldtraveller coming to his defense, but ignoring (or just not looking into) the fact that what he was doing WAS wrong. Unless you all really are in favor of calling people "witless moron" and publicly declaring vendettas. I mean, COME ON. He outright said that he was going to do everything in his power to get InShaneee. That's harassment. By any definition of the word. There is a point at which we have to say, "Stop". I believe he crossed it. And when I DID say "Stop", he refused. --CBD 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if I am acting like a moron, I would want someone to tell me. That's the only way I will learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor. Is calling someone a "witless moron" harsh? Sure. I would have said it differently but if WT thought InShaneee was acting poorly, he had every right to tell him so. He just chose his words wrong. MetsFan76 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your actions and calling you names are different. That is why we even have guidelines on civility and personal attacks. If I felt that you acting in a moronic fashion, the proper route is for me to tell you that I didn't agree with your course...it is not to call you a witless moron. IrishGuy ^talk 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that what I just said? MetsFan76 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you were saying, then I must have interpreted it incorrectly. My apoligies. To me, it seemed as if you were excusing his actions by saying that at most he chose his words poorly. I think it was an outright personal attack and I'm not sure why so many others are excusing it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. That's what I was saying. My only issue is that people are only looking at WT actions. Personally, the entire issue is done now as WT, unfortunately, left. The problem now is that HighinBC and CBD are continuing to debate this. If it's over, then let it go. MetsFan76 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is kicking a dead horse. IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, folks. I went to lunch. I wasn't trying to fail to respond to a question <ahem>. Ok, going through the thread above, I felt that HighinBC was getting very agitated about the issue. To me, that made him interested. I regard blocks as best done rarely and done by the disinterested. I understand how hard that can be. After all, having an opinion should be allowed. Obviously, I have my own. As for what that opinion is, it's that we simply should not block for NPA except, as the policy says, "extreme cases." Continually asking a question isn't an extreme case, and the question wasn't asked continually. Being high tempered when treated high handedly is also not an occasion for a block. I've had Ideogram, for example, pester me -- in my view -- for a long time, and I've had people come to my user talk page to tell me that they would do all they could to get me demoted. I did not block, and I am not a paragon of virtue. Rather, I combined my view with what I took as the majority view here and added those to the fact that I considered HighinBC too involved to perform the unblock. No meanness intended. Geogre 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am baffled as to what irritation, or even involvement you are talking about. My involvement with this user is limited to simply warnings that his actions could very well lead to a block. I have no personal investment in whatever the debate about that month old block is. I don't even know what all that is about. I saw a user being warned not to be disruptive and threatening to continue, another admin blocked, I endorsed that block. To say I am to involved in a situation because I gave warnings is ridiculous. My block for personal attacks followed several warnings spanning weeks.

I don't mind being on the wrong side of consensus with an unblock review, so be it. Maybe the block for harassment was unjustified, maybe it was not. But my 24 hours block for personal attacks is an open and shut case, I ask that you return it by setting the block time to 19:35, March 4, 2007, 24 hours after the original block. I would do it myself, but that would be wheel warring. If you don't want to do this, then please be considerably more specific about my conflict of interest, or over involvement, or whatever it is that you think invalidated my block. Diffs would be nice. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

As a public service, here's a rough timeline of events. For people unfamiliar with the case to better judge the merits of the various claims of who failed to do what when. May be incomplete, I haven't followed the events too closely myself.

• 1st RfC about InShaneee filed, independent issue: 1 November
• First attempted closure of RfC: 29 December
• Contentious block of Worldtraveller by InShaneee 2 January
• First complaint by Worldtraveller on ANI: 3 January
• InShaneee's only immediate response after being criticised by several admins on the noticeboard: "governing the lesser Wikipedians"
• Second attempt at closing first RfC: 10 January [3]
• Attempt at discussion by Worldtraveller on InShaneee's talk. Meeting with silence. Repeated attempts over several weeks, with WT becoming increasingly aggressive at InShaneee's failure to respond, finally leading to downright insults. Escalating from 3 January to 12 February
• Renewed attempt at closing first RfC: 12 February
• 2nd RfC filed by Worldtraveller: 14 February
• InShaneee apologising to WT: 19 February. WT not satisfied with the apology, keeps criticising InShaneee harshly
• First complaint by InShaneee on ANI: 19 February [4]
• Second complaint by InShaneee on AN: 1 March

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary. As it happens, I saw that debate at the time but didn't pay attention to who the parties were and didn't realize it was connected. My brief synopsis would be; InShaneee was wrong two months ago, Worldtraveller is wrong now. Seriously, a two month (not one as I thought) vendetta? Not harassment? How can anyone seriously claim that continual haranguing of another user for two months is something we should encourage. We have dispute resolution procedures precisely to prevent that sort of long term inter-personal conflict. --CBD 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Time shouldn't be a factor here. What's wrong is wrong. There's no statute of limitations here. InShaneee was wrong then, WT is wrong now. Whatever the case, in the past two months, they both acted poorly. MetsFan76 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except of course that the longer harassment goes on the bigger a problem it is. You say Worldtraveller acted poorly. I said that yesterday and told him to stop. He refused so I blocked him. Unless you think I should have allowed him to continue acting poorly, at this point I'm not really sure what it is about my action that you dispute. --CBD 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with your actions is that you are basically the only now making an issue about this. The horse is dead, stop kicking it. MetsFan76 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - he was originally blocked for "harassment" because he kept trying to enter into a dialogue about the InShaneee's block in January, rather than either letting it go or escalating the dispute resolution? And then his block was doubled because (a) he was called someone a "witless moron" over a month ago (and 3 weeks after he first asked for an explanation) and (b) he lashed out when smacked with the first block? I am so cross I can barely type. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitting our selves on the head with a hammer

Worldtraveller did nothing to merit a block - he was demanding accountability of an admin who blew him off for weeks. His actions are a good thing. Admins have a duty to answer for themselves when they make blocks in error. Is this is obvious to everyone, or do we need another 1000 words of official policy.

Blocking our best editors for questionable reasons is rather like hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer to cure a headache. --Duk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh... "His actions were a good thing". Of course... we should call everyone "witless moron" and "fuckwit". Because that'll be beneficial to the encyclopedia. How could I have missed it? :]

Seeking accountability is a good thing... if done through the proper dispute resolution procedures. Worldtraveller was urged to do so. He refused and insisted on attacks, threats, and harassment instead. That was not a good thing and it absolutely was deserving of a block. Yes, InShaneee's block was wrong. However, that does not give Worldtraveller license to behave as badly as he likes for as long as he likes. Wikipedia will be better off when people realize that BOTH 'executive' and 'personal' accountability are important. --CBD 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CBD, do you think you are acting civil right now? The people who this really affects (WT and InShaneee) have not said a word for quite some time (unless I missed something). Why don't you just drop it? There is no need for you to defend your actions. MetsFan76 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't? Oh, my mistake. I thought people were calling me a "fuckwit", "twit", "ignoramus", who made an "outrageously unjustified", "absurd", "ridiculous", "trigger-happy" block. Good to know that there is 'no need to defend my actions'. I'd somehow gotten a different impression. :]

Perhaps some of these other people could stop calling me names and insulting me to help show how this is a dropped matter that I don't need to clarify my position on? Because... you know if I don't respond apparently that would make me a "terrible administrator" and a "witless moron". --CBD 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sticks and stones......" MetsFan76 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And now HighInBC has blocked one of the people defending WT... This is getting sillier and sillier, more and more hysterical — and less and less pleasant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Dbuckner

I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see HighInBC has opened a separate thread at the bottom of this page. I'll copy this there so discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Emailing the blocking admin is the *suggested procedure*, not that it actually ever works. We should be *free* to criticize admins use of their tools without getting blocked. Wjhonson 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe

user: Apostrophe has been constantly harassing and wikistalking me. He was blocked once for harassing users in edit summaries, but he continues... Examples: Edit summary referring to me: "God, not you again". Also, see my talk page for his lovely comment. it should be "Request declined". I before has tried to talk to him on his talk page, and he deleted by comment. I was blocked for supposed harassment, so he should as well. InvaderSora 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another in a long line of attempts to get me banned:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

' 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding a fair bit of incivility on Apostrophe's part (including the aformentioned edit summary), but nothing that suggests harassment or wikistalking. InvaderSora: If your allegations are true, please provide some diffs to demonstrate this. Your constantly posting these accusations with no evidence wastes everyone's time, including yours. Heimstern Läufer 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For one, many rude commemnts towards me. Second, Almost every page i edit he goes to. InvaderSora 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there's cause for concern for this editor. He basically edit wars dissenters into staleness as a means of disagreement resolution (see here, where he basically tells someone that it doesn't matter because he and someone else who agrees with the guy will just get him blocked for 3RR), and his general unwillingness to communicate on his talk page... this guy has no regard for any other editor and acts like he owns many articles. Maybe there's a legit concern here. ScottchS 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace Bonney

The creator of Grace Bonney, DesignReferences (talk · contribs), contacted me about the page, stating:

I created the entries and would like to have them removed because Administrators aren't doing a good job of keeping defamatory content off the page. The subject of the entries contacted me as well and ask me to remove them. I have requested Speedy Deletion because they have been constantly edited with personal attacks. I tried to blank the page all together and was told that my edit was considered "vandalous" (But in the FAQ on deletion it says that if a creator blanks a page it could be considered a request for deletion). Please let me know what I need to do to remove this entry all together from Wikipedia to prevent the defamation which is going on.

I figured it'd be best to get some admin input on the situation...if the subject of the article wishes to have his or her info removed, is that kosher? Vandalism can be fought and reverted, and the subject seems to have a WP:BIO-sufficient notability. What course of action should be taken? -- Scientizzle 08:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It has WP:BIO-sufficient notability? Really? No sources, the claim to fame in the article was helping to maintain a website... It seemed like a totally obvious speedy deletion to me, and that's what I did. We don't remove articles simply because someone doesn't want to be on here, and there are ways to attract adequate attention to pages in need, but this was obviously not notable enough to me. Did I miss something? Outside review is welcome, but I won't be available for two days, starting right about... Now. Grandmasterka 08:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I grabbed some attributed media coverage and placed it on the talk page, but hadn't independently verified more than a couple. All I was saying it that it was possibly gray-area notability or better, and I wanted some feedback on the situation. I wasn't honestly sure about whether living people had any say over the inclusion of their biographies. -- Scientizzle 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 20,000 google hits and the designer's desire not to have Wikipedia note she's a blogger paid to promote products? KP Botany 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your snooty edit summary... You could rewrite the article yourself with those sources, KP. Seeing that the article was tagged as unsourced for half a year doesn't elevate my faith in finding reliable sources. Besides which, I never said she was a paid blogger. I said there's no proof she meets WP:BIO. Grandmasterka 09:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why bother writing it, since although she's mentioned in plenty of newspapers, magazines and on television shows and gets plenty of Internet play it has already been decreed, that she doesn't meet WP:BIO. It will just be deleted because your seeing "no proof she meets WP:BIO" trumps the media. KP Botany 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that WP:CSD#A7 says "no assertion of notability", right?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Valid A7 speedy, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place for a debate on N is AfD. If the article is currently deleted, then I suppose the proper place is Deletion Review. Not here.DGG 18:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, just take to Deletion Review if there is disagreement with the decision. It doesn't sound like blatant out of process deletion that an admin should simply reverse. Metamagician3000 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize Scientizzle was trying to find independent sources... I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes. If anyone wants it in their userspace I'd be happy to move it there for you. Or, you can recreate it with some sources. I just get annoyed when I delete a vanity bio that hasn't been sourced or had any assertion of notability for almost a year, and people who had nothing to do with the article before suddenly start complaining. Grandmasterka 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Drone (band)

Resolved

It is blatant advertising ¸ I tagged with {db-spam}--Doktor Who 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would've tagged it with {db-band}, but that still reads roughly the same. --Dane ^~nya 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok¸ done.--Doktor Who 12:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And personally, Im not even sure if you can call them a "band".Third Wave Ska 12:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Call them a band,sir. Call them a band.Charlie Fixes It! 13

06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been recreated. I tagged it with {{db-band}}. --Edokter (Talk) 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

hmmm.....---Doktor Who 21:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RuleBrittania

For no apparent reason aside to harass, RuleBrittania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has asked for my talkpage to be un-semiprotected and has now been declined twice. He claims he wanted to post an AGF "warning" on my talkpage, even though I have not once encountered this "new" editor before. Edits indicate that RuleBritannia is indefintely banned editor Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/NoJoyInMudville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same edits to articles such as Korean Friendship Association and North Korea. For the record, I was the admin who banned Frogsprog and NoJoyInMudville back in September after numerous blocks and warnings about incivility and personal attacks.--MONGO 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Defense - I simply noted an incivil comment made by MONGO and wanted to say something about it, I can't even find the edit as I noticed it before I was unblocked, all I wanted to do was post him a message, I haven't committed any vandalism! any edits I made which were deemed to be POV were reverted and I haven't touched the articles since! I know MONGO has been here longer than me so I spent a lot of time exploring the site to actually find how to defend myself here! I notice that MONGO was himself "de-sysoped" for this exact kind of over-reaction late last year. I apologise for any offence MONGO took from my intent to warn him, I now know it's for some reason not accepted for inexperienced editors to warn long standing users. --RuleBrittania 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Without the diff to prove he deserves a warning, we can't really say if he should have it or not. How do we know the edit is not from May or June last year? -- ReyBrujo 21:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I understand, I was really new at the time, I'm learning now. I don't think I should be reported as an incident just because I messed up once, I'm sorry, is that ok or shall I just leave now?? --RuleBrittania 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the contribution pattern (silly POV edits related to the relative merits of the North Korean and U.S. governments), I've blocked RuleBrittania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet. Sandstein 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked through the contributions as well, and it seems pretty obvious. ElinorD (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I looked through those contributions too, and some are good edits, others are the kind of POV edits rather typical of new editors who haven't yet learned how to write properly for the encyclopedia. Is there any other reason than unpopular political POV for banning this editor? Zocky | picture popups 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...how about the fact that he has used about two dozen sock accounts for harassment and POV pushing? I don't even edit any articles this editor does...he just has a beef since I blocked a few of his sock accounts a while back. his IP was supposedly blocked for a long while, but is apparently editing again] See, 82.43.244.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).--MONGO 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the POV itself is of course not a reason for blocking. Sockpuppetry when indefinitely blocked is. The POV edits are just an indication to establish this. If you take a look at the contributions of the users in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frogsprog, you'll notice that it's characteristic of this vandal to make vaguely trollish POV edits to North Korea-related content and to harrass MONGO, such as [15], [16], [17] etc. Sandstein 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also looked at FrogSprog's contribs, and they don't seem that remarkable. The Bush sodomite thing wasn't very useful, but it wasn't in an article. Otherwise, FrogSprog had mostly good edits. What was the reason for banning him in the first place? Zocky | picture popups 07:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for a start, how about this friendly message. Or this charming enhancement to a widely-used userbox (through one of his socks). One could go on and on and on -- bad-faith vandalism reports, personal attacks, you name it. Raymond Arritt 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Zocky...look again: Very 1st edit to article on United States...[18] Rplaces "federal republic" with "Conservative Militaristic Imperial Dictatorship" in the article infobox. Repeated incivilities:[19],[20], [21], you are a stereotypical american, pro-gun, pro-war, and FASCIST. just leave the rest of the world alone and wallow in your hell hole of opppression that you call america! Vandalizing templates with insulting commentary[22]...I don't see hardly anything BUT personal attacks, disruptive editing and harassment. If that isn't enough, look at some of the contributions made by his numerous sock accounts...Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frogsprog...such as here, editing as User:Frogbaby, he redirects one editors userpage to Murderer...[23]--MONGO 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent page of contribs of his original account seems to contain quite some good-faith edits, including removing anti-DPRK [24] and anti-American bias [25]. He's obviously not a blatant vandal, just a difficult person. It's quite likely that talking to him would be more useful than trying to keep him off the site, which we can't really do anyway. Zocky | picture popups 11:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody would have taken notice of him if he hadn't tried to harass MONGO. Once it's established that a banned sockpuppet is harassing editors, the ban should be enforced. MONGO didn't go looking for incarnations of frogspog, rather it was the other way around. --Tbeatty 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless this harassment consists of more than leaving unpleasant messages around Wikipedia, it's entirely irrelevant, and mentioning it frequently sounds very much like whining. Admins get to make decisions and it's inevitable that not everybody will like them, and this being teh interwebz, there are bound to be flames, annoyances and inane threats. If one wants to be an enforcer, thick skin is a prerequisite.

And it's not that patently clear that this person is banned. We have a general forget-and-forgive policy. If somebody is properly banned (e.g. by ArbCom, and for a known amount of time) for a set amount of time, registering a new account to evade that ban is clearly gaming the system and should be prevented. But if somebody's account is permablocked forever by an individual admin, is that person banned forever? Obviously not, we even regularly advise people like that to register new accounts. Zocky | picture popups 03:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that hi8s numerous sock accounts which have been blocked by numerous editors is clear demostration you couldn't be more incorrect. For those of us whose primarily efort here si to write an encyclopedia, abusive editors such as Frogsprog and his sock do nothing but interfere with that effort. Now, if you wish to mentor this potentially fine editor, please be my guest. That burden can rest with you.--MONGO 06:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, direct him to me the next time he harrasses you, or just drop me a note. Zocky | picture popups 06:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We do have a forgive and forget policy. No one requested a checkuser or went on a fishing expedition and if he had returned and simply contributed to the project, no one would have complained. But he didn't. Insteead he decided to repeat the same actions that led to a block previously. Sorry, the community's patience is very short with repeat vandals and very forgiving for reformed ones. Once the IP block has expired, this user is free to create another account and contribute and there will be no questions asked. Unless he decides to vandalize again. In that case he will promptly be blocked. --Tbeatty 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did do a checkuser, and caught three new sockpuppets he used today. Raul654 06:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he's using sockpuppets. That's what everybody does once they get their primary account permablocked and learn that evading blocks is easy. But he isn't a vandal, and he isn't engaged in a personal vendetta. He's a POV pusher, but we all are to some xtent and that's not a cardinal sin on Wikipedia.

My whole point in this is that permablocking problematic users who are not blatant vandals is counterproductive and in the long term wastes everybody's time and effort. (And it's not as he doesn't have some of a point. Articles about North Korea are indeed often written from the American perspective. Countering systemic bias a worthy goal.) If and when this guy returns, he will still have the same POV, and still go to the same articles. When he's instantly met with reverts, and threats of blocks for being a sockpuppet (how else could he edit at all, his account is permablocked), that just reinforces his conviction that he's being targeted. I bet he feels just as harassed as MONGO. And then we continue the vicious cycle until he gives up and a bunch of other people are disgusted. OTOH, if we reset our patience counter to 0, try talking to him and working with him, maybe there's a chance that he can learn to work with us. Zocky | picture popups 07:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in time, he'll calm down enough to be a decent contributor...but honestly, you can't expect anyone to agree that redirecting another editor's userpage to Murderer and the other offensive edits are not examples of blatant vandalism. For the record, I never dealt with this editor until informed about his harassment of others...after he was blocked by other admins and still failed to reform, I saw no reason to not invite him to leave. Your attitude suggests that harassment is to be tolerated, and I linked you to his very first edit, which was hardly indication that this editor had started his efforts here with simply a desire to rid North Korean articles of some systemic "American" bias...he didn't start off being the nice guy and then find himself blocked for POV pushing...he showed up trolling, and for the most part, has spent his time harassing other editors with not some minor ribbing, but offensive and derogatory ethnocentric rubbish. Like I said, you unblock him and you can nurture him, but I don't see much consensus here for an unblock.--MONGO 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Look MONGO, the more I try to talk about how this benefits or hurts the project, the more you defend your actions, as if I'm criticizing you personally. This isn't about whether you need to be praised or criticized, it's not about whether this guy is a model contributor or not. We all agree that he isn't, amd that some of his edits constitute vandalism. But he obviously wants to change what the encyclopedia says about issues that matter to him, not to simply vandalize articles to have a piss. I'm simply trying to point out that permablocking might not be the best way to deal with such people. Zocky | picture popups 08:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Look MONGO"? Nice. Anyway, it must be the fault of the system that we block those who are here for harassment and disruption purposes...Raul's checkuser identified three more socks...User:We have 6 heads, User:Confusingone and User:AmbulanceHead...let's have a lookie at these fine edits shall we...but before we do, let's both agree that what we have here is an excellent editor, whose sole effort is to change what the encyclopedia says about issues that matter to him...We have 6 heads added this edit to the article on North Korea:It was started by McDonalds in 2008, this was in order to help George W Bush forget about his sore nob. Which was a record breking 1456 metres in length. he used it to fire weapons of mass destruction before it fell off, he now has the most advanced false penis in the world, it is made of iron. But he cant fire nothin with it no more! poor george :'( or this one: here, Militant Islam becomes Homosexual/ and there are more references to penises...here as AmbulanceHead, he alters another editors userpage to well take a look, [26], [27], Well, I don't really want to "edit constructively", mainly because this site is really really stupid...so tell me, exactly what do you do with this kind of "editor". The only thing to do is to ask him to stop...and many people did...but he didn't and he hasn't so this insinuation that his efforts here are solely to make things better is, well, completely laughable.--MONGO 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I concede that the way we acted has nothing to do with escalating his behavior from edits like [28] to the latest edits MONGO describes above. I also concede that permablocking is an effective way of dealing with people like this. I just wonder why we are here discussing his behavior 5 months after the first permablock then. Zocky | picture popups 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, as he said, he doesn't care. The last block wasn't permanent anyway and he created other socks while blocked on his main account during earlier blocks.--MONGO 10:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user who comes back having turned over a new leaf, and with a genuine desire to contribute to the project, does not make his way almost immediately to RfPP to ask for the talk page of the admin who originally blocked him to be unprotected so that he can leave him an AGF warning. If he wants to contribute without trolling, he edits articles, discusses improvements to the articles on the article talk pages, and stays away from anyone he has had a dispute with in the past. Musical Linguist 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about JzG

JzG, in your complaint about my "unilateral removal of information at ArbCom," you have carefully avoided mentioning one inconvenient truth, as you are in the habit of doing: the information I was deleting was personal info about a Wikipedia member. As Moe said on my Talk page, posting such information is unacceptable and worthy of a block. I will also mention, in this venue, the e-mail you sent to me this morning that said, "Fuck off." If I did the same things you've been doing, I would instantly be blocked for incivility and posting personal info.

Is anybody going to do anything about this?

Furthermore, according to the logic that was used to permablock Fensteren ("no new user goes straight into dispute resolution"), both Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir should be instantly permablocked as sockpuppets.

Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been clerking this arbitration case. Much of the behavior on the evidence and workshop pages has veered between borderline and completely unacceptable. I have refactored the worst instances of inappropriate material being added (by various parties) and left the rest for the arbitrators to sort through, and urged all the parties to bear in mind that the evidence and workshop need to be relevant and comprehensible for the arbitrators to use to resolve the case. It would best at this point if everyone would stop editing the pages, unless absolutely necessary. Evidence inappropriate for presentation on-wiki (including but not limited to information revealing real-world identifying information) should be e-mailed directly to the arbitrators and not posted on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect Brad, I feel that some of your conduct has been the same. You posted a spurious defamatory email from banned multiple checkuser confirmed sockpuppteer user BrianfromPalatine - who was determined through multiple RFCU's to be a serial liar about every aspect of his life including his indentity, age, location, employment, background, etc. You published this wild unbelievable screed full of spurious unfounded allegations of harassment and stalking without one bit of evidence to back them up. The documented facts are that in the 100's of posts by Bryan on Free Republic during that time frame not one claims harassment - but instead they document his own malfeasance such as bragging about being a 'long time trouble maker' on liberal boards, and even outlining a plan to infiltrate liberal discussion boards, post phony threats against conservatives, and then report those threats to the police, to benefit Free Republic! 'Dean' accused BenBurch of felonious harassment that involved the police, but when I offer to have someone get the 'police report' for verification, you delete these comments, while letting banned user 'Bryan's' 100% undocumented claims of stalking and worse, and 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment against an editor in good standing stay. Thank God that Bryan didn't claim in his email that [liberal] 'Dingoes Ate My Baby!', as I'm sure it would have been entered into 'evidence' by you, as credible, true and correct. - FaAfA (yap) 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the clerk for the arbitration case. Blocked or banned users are permitted to submit evidence by e-mail, to be either posted to the evidence page or forwarded to the arbitrators. To an extreme degree of obviousness, this does not mean that I vouched for the content of the evidence as "credible, true and correct." If you had requested at the time that I remove this evidence and forward to the arbitrators by e-mail instead, I would have considered your request. That you are raising the matter instead at this time is really extraordinary. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of 'Bryan's' email tirade was not pertinent to the matters being Arbifatrated. I had no idea that we could request removal unless there was specfic personal attack, BLP violation or similar (my fault) and that was one reason why I challenged 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment by BenBurch - and even arranged for a friend to drive from Chicago to Palatine to get a signed statement from the police - but you deleted all that - while 'Dean's' claims of felony harassment not only stand, but get posted to 1000's of users talk pages via the Signpost. (not your fault) Your last name isn't Hinnen is it? (That's a JOKE - JUST KIDDING! ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any paticualr point in posting this message here. It seems like it would be more appropriate on JzG's talk page. Viridae^Talk 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's completely status quo for Dino's behaviour. SirFozzie 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there's a point to posting it here. We are absolutely not allowed to draw inferences from the fact that Dean Hinnen told us that Bryan is his brother. We absolutely may not infer from that that Bryan has the same surname, that would be an intolerable invasion of privacy. And most especially we may not report that external parties state that Bryan is in fact Bryan Dean Hinnen. That would be very wrong. No no no, we may not report that. It would be as bad as assuming that an editor who picks up the vendetta of a banned user from the same IP address is the same person - impossible to support. How could that be the case? It never happens. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Ouch, that was one Catch-22. So we are not allowed to point out absurdly obvious connections without the threat of a libel lawsuit? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If information is not able to be put on a Wikipedia page it can always be given via email to the ArbCom. JoshuaZ 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This case was sent to arbitration precisely because this group of editors had become an incredible resource drain on our administrators and editors—just like now. Let's end this thread here. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn right. The case should be closed, endorsing Bryan's ban, applying the blindingly obvious, i.e. blocking Dean, and probably an article ban and civility parole for FAAFA. It has been far and away the most ill-tempered and pointless RFAR I have ever been involved in. The only real result is that I have moved from cautious distrust of Dean to outright contempt. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first Arbitrator has weighed in and I don't yet see an endorsement of a Dino ban. I do, however, see a proposed one-year block on FAAFA. Happy to disappoint you, sir. Now then. According to the logic that was used to permablock Fensteren ("no new user goes straight into dispute resolution"), both Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir should be instantly permablocked as sockpuppets. Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazing hubris. Totally amazing. You really think you going to be vindicated by this process, don't you? --BenBurch 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vindicated? Probably not 100% ... but FAAFA is going to get what he deserves, and so are you. Stalking is serious. Admitting that you were stalking me was generous. Now then. According to the Fensteren precedent, Apj-us-nyc and Eschoir are sockpuppets and should be permablocked. Is anybody going to do anything about that? Dino 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange, as all three parties are being dragged down the same ArbCom ban hole, you among them. And the proposed decision page is still blank, so I won't draw arrogant conclusions from nonexistent sources. And we always have a community ban bludgeon to wield at some, if those said people dare step over the line...again. We're not very kind with people who think they are more than what they are. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to respond to that. My entire purpose in starting an account was to remove an abysmally sourced criticism from an article about an organization that, in the time period that was described by the abysmally sourced criticism, was a one-man website run by a living person named Jim Robinson. I happened to know that the abysmally sourced criticism was a lie. It has been removed. WP:BLP has been served. Anything that I manage to achieve beyond that is pure gravy. If I'm doomed, and if I manage to drag down the two incorrigible trolls who posted it when I go, it's a fabulous fringe benefit. They have track records that make the worst goat trail in the Sudan look like the Autobahn. Wikipedia will be better off without them.

What matters to me, sir, is making Wikipedia better. Dino 02:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You can improve on Wikipedia without creating needless friction and animosity within the community as you have done, thank you very much. And your own self-inflicted bloody footprints here aren't any better than their goat trail, so I suggest you read your words twice before posting them. As the community can do without them (assuming that your assertion is correct, just for the sake of argument), we can do without you. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view Dean is User:BryanFromPalatine or (less likely) a meatpuppet thereof. The sole purpose of that account on Wikipedia has been to get a retaliatory ban against FAAFA and BenBurch, after BryanFromPalatine was blocked. I will be most disappointed if ArbCom give him what he wants. FAAFA would not be much of a loss, but BenBurch is generally a reasonable editor. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that explains Ben's admission that he was stalking me, and his bogus sockpuppet allegation that other admins immediately identified as vexatious process. Dino 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Only because you preemptively poisoned the well, Dino. BTW.. that's a new one on me, calling a "related" CheckUser result and an admission that you are "Bryan's Brother" who continues his fight "Bogus". SirFozzie 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent mass copyright violations...

I've come across an anon editor making very large additions to a wide variety of country articles with no references. They seem to have come from FOXNews.com - from each country page. Try Western New Guinea, East Timor and Kiribati, have all had copyright material copy and pasted from [29] and other country pages on this site. Another issue is the Balance of Payments section which miraculously appears in countries as diverse as Kiribati and Libya - suggest another copy'n'paste job. I haven't found it's source, but it is unreferenced and substantial. Even if he was to reference this material, its it really what we want wikipedia to be - a mass copy and paste from FOXNews or similar? The ed appears to be continuing with this edit mode after having been warned by others on his talk page. Not sure what can be done given that it is on a large scale, and I can't chase the ed all day. I've left a message for 'him'. regards --Merbabu 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Did FOX get that text from CIA World Factbook originally? --BenBurch 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find the original edit these were introduced? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the source of this person's edits in a google search. The Western New Guinea edits were word for word from the Fox website, but other edits appear to be reworded a bit, although probably not enough to avoid copyright infringement. The Fox website takes about ten minutes to load each page, so checking is very laborious. I agree that the edits are not acceptable without sources, and have removed a number of them.

The three ips/accounts used so far that I know of are: 68.157.29.52 (talk · contribs), 70.152.248.166 (talk · contribs) and Longjohn3 (talk · contribs).-gadfium 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I quick-checked the CIA World Factbook entry for Kiribati - the facts may come from there, but the text does not; if it's copied off the Fox site, then it's a copyvio. Georgewilliamherbert 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

...And I can confirm that spot-checking of contributions shows they came from Fox. I am going to 24 hr block all three users (two IPs and the Longjohn3 account) for this massive and sustained copyvio - we have to get them to stop it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant and Unjustified harassment

Resolved

I have been constantly attacked by three users:

• Butterrum
• Craxy

These attacks have generated from my prevalent involvement with a page and the fact that, to them, it appears as if I am being antagonistic towards them. This harassment has come in the form of constant reverts, blatant attacks, and even one user trying to conspire users against me; you can check both of the users' contributions, talk pages, and my own talk page to get a clear picture of what is going on. I implore any admins to please put a stop to this unnecessary and unconstructive harassment. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuck {{uw-npa4}} templates on their userpages. If they attack once more, go to WP:AIV and be sure to put the link WP:AN/I#Constant and Unjustified harassment somewhere in there so sysops can check. That said, keep away from them to avoid making the situation worse. x42bn6 Talk 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Thanks. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Attacks" appear to have subsided after I asked User:Butterrum for an instance where you were racist - and he never got back to me. In any case, comments such as "Haha, this is so ridiculous man. I'm lovin' it. Keep it up." (provocation), "Nah, I won't stay out of this, "cuz." This isn't even necessary; you and Butterrum lack the maturity to be on Wikipedia. Seeing crap like this is both funny and stupid. Oh yeah, saying stuff like "cuz" doesn't make you Black.", and more do not make any situation worth looking at. Arguments shouldn't carry on that long - simply defuse it by being civil. And if that doesn't work, there are various channels to go further upon. You are on one of them now. By the way, I'm not a sysop so if someone else could deal with this, I would appreciate it. x42bn6 Talk 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to you bringing up my comments, I apologize for them; doing things like that brings me down to their level and I've decided to just flat out ignore them, if all possible, at least. It's just that his has been going on for quite a while, and it's truly "wikistressing" me out that nothing either has or can be done about it. Also, I fear Craxy may be "revving up" another verbal bombardment soon; he recently posted a message about him hearing, no doubt from Butterrum, that I called him a "retard," which is, if you don't know, totally false. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has anything to worry about if they have done no wrong. If things get out of hand, [{WP:AIV]] is thataway. x42bn6 Talk 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Slashdotted again

Just a heads up, User talk:Jimbo Wales just got slashdotted again. There will probably be a load of troll comments over at that talk page. Here's the article. Cheers, PTO 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Surprise. Of. The. Century. Picaroon 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not kidding ;). Yuser31415 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That explains the pig flying by my window. Natalie 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that was my fault. Teke ^(talk) 06:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So are we still evil? Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Talk:Essjay

The whole mess on Essjay has moved to the article talkpage where Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) calls for Essjays blocking and Chacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) revert the entries as they are not within the scope of the article talkpage as an attack on the object of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 12:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this happened on User talk:Essjay, and someone else has reported Arcticdawg at AIV. Essjay has left. It's over. The page needs to be protected. – Chacor 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well he also included those comments on the article page and got reverted, but not by you. Agathoclea 12:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Articdawh has now taken his campaign to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked for disruption - please review. Agathoclea 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on this edit, I'd suggest actually lengthening the block. It's block evasion, firstly, and also, anyone who did that knowingly would probably be blocked indef. – Chacor 12:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Insert) I think far too early for indef - tempers will cool - other matters will be more important and it seems out of character for the user. Agathoclea 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I blocked 67.71.152.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well for blockevation - please review. Agathoclea 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it isn't someone evading a block, that block is clearly justified. – Steel 13:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now unblocked, as concerns were raised elsewhere. Agathoclea 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a spam ruling from an admin

Could someone make the call where links to Tiny Mix Tapes are spam? User:Mangle is adding this link to a large number of pages, but argues it's a legitimate review site. The site does contain a lot of advertising. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has no obvious authority, so why would anyone link it anyway? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure why being an admin asserts any more authority over the subject at hand than a regular editor, but I would say it's spam. It doesn't have any authority; it's just like Purevolume links: they're there to be there. Shadow1 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• You may find the relevant guideline useful. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The site does not contain a lot of advertising. It now has three banners, but, before that, the site operated for several years with absolutely no ads whatsoever. And, it should be noted, the ads in question are music related (it's a music journalism website). It should also be noted that Popmatters and Pitchfork contain far more ads than three. I only added links to tinymixtapes in the "professional reviews" catagory for albums, as the reviews on TMT are the hallmark of professional. I never just spam linked the basic site link. I only provided relevant content to specific albums. I deeply object to the association of Tiny Mix Tapes as spam. It is a professional music journalism website and should be allowed to be mentioned along side other professional reviews.--Mangle 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editor has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. IrishGuy ^talk 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an editor for tinymixtapes, or any publication for that matter. And I fail to see how adding professional reviews under the professional reviews catagory is spamming. IF you don't want people to post professional reviews, don't have a professional reviews catagory in albums.--Mangle 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangle, the problem I have with linking to Tiny Mix Tapes is that you haven't shown it to be a notable web site, in accordance with our policies. I looked into it a bit, and couldn't find anything to change my mind. You can read our web site notability guidelines here. While that is specifically for articles about websites, in my mind it would also apply to external links of this type. If someone wrote a review of an album on a blogspot blog and linked to it in an album's infobox here, I think we'd all agree that most editors would object to including it. In the absence of evidence that Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable or respected website providing reviews, it should be treated the same way, I'm afraid. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, he got blocked for spamming. I ended up pulling out about 120 links by Mangle dating back to December. Pretty much all his edits here have been to insert those links into articles. As far as I am concerned, that is the definition of spam even if the site had some notability to it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [30] and discussed in a scholarly journal[31]. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others. The reason none of this was spam is because I only added those link to the sections entitled "professional reviews." I strongly believe Tiny Mix Tapes to be a professional review source, and placing those reviews along side allmusic and pitchfork in the proper catagory on album pages is the very definition of what wikipedia is supposed to be about... good, comprehensive content.--Mangle 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't a reason it wasn't spam. It was spam. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI again as you don't seem to understand the policies. You are associated with the site. You made widescale edits to various articles where your only addition was a link to the site you are affiliated with. That is spam. IrishGuy ^talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, I created album pages that otherwise would not exist, complete with tracklisting, then added a link to a tinymixtapes review under the prefabricated "professional reviews" heading. That's called content, not spam. Good call. By the way, I wouldn't call adding one link a "widescale edit." You are exaggerating.--Mangle 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you created exactly two articles...and, of course, made sure that tinymixtapes.com was the only review linked. Other than that, you placed links to tinymixtapes.com in at least 120 other articles. Yes, that is widescale spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In 120 other articles under the "professional reviews" catagory, linking to professional articles relevant to the artist = content. And I didn't "make sure" TMT was the only review linked. I just didn't put any others down. The other million Wiki editors are free to add Pitchfork or whatever they want to the pages I created. Quite frankly, I don't know how to "make sure" TMT is the only review linked.--Mangle 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained WP:COI and WP:SPAM to you countless times. You cannot link to a site you are associated with and claim it isn't spamming. It is. It isn't adding content, it is advertising reviews you wrote. IrishGuy ^talk 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So then what is the professional reviews catagory for? For not having content?--Mangle 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly what parts of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you are having trouble understanding. IrishGuy ^talk 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive Attacks On Wiktionary and Wikispecies connected to Essjay?

Hello, I am an editor over on Wiktionary. In the past few moments, both Wiktionary and Wikispecies have been hit by MASSIVE automated attacks coming in through numerous IPs. All the attacks replace a random page with "ESSJAY'S REVENGE" numerous times, and do the same to the edit summery. So far, there has to have been about 1000 attacks in numerous waves. I would like to see what the Wikipedia community thinks of this and warn them in case it happens here. Good day all.

Wiktionary Attacks

Wikispecies Attacks

WIKTIONARY REP 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We could just do a range block on those IPs unless someone sees a reason not to --BigDT 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I C&P-ed some of the IP addies and a couple have had brief spates of vandalism here over the past 2 months or so. I'd support a short range block.

• [32]
• [33]Dina 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

These two are open proxy outproxies. If you test 216.163.188.40:80 you will see outproxies in that range (I already managed to get .200 and .203). The range is .200-.230 according to rDNS; I will do a range block soon. --cesarb 20:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I briefly investigated doing the block myself and realized that it was beyond me. Good work. Dina 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note User:WIKTIONARY REP has been indef blocked. this is not the first time recently that a cross-project issue has been raised here by the user causing the trouble in the first place. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but the block was a username block, I assume because using "wiktionary" in the name is a violation of WP:USER. The account was not blocked for any other reason that I'm aware of. There is no evidence I've seen that this user was the one who caused the problems, is there? Dina 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The username claims that he is an sanctioned representative of Wiktionary, which is blockable under our username guidlines as implying authority within Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Pretty much, Wiktionary Rep can get another account, since all it is just a naming issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to the block, which I totally understand, but I read Neil's comment as implying that the block meant this user was up to no good. Having Wiki-something in your name must be the most common, and least "offensive" indef block reason there is... Cheers. Dina 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

199.64.0.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user seems way overdue a block, the number of times the user has offended over such a long period, this user should surely face a short block Willow177 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

99.64.0.252 (talk · contribs) has no contributions. Are you looking for someone else? --BigDT 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:199.64.0.252. Sorry, typo Willow177 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Falsifying copyright info, OTRS info

Resolved

In this section, I am not using the term, "fraudulent", in any legal sense. I believe it is the best description of the actions described. Prince Godfather (talk · contribs), after being blocked several times before for copyright violations, was caught placing false OTRS permission information on the following images:

• Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
• Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
• Image:Vijaytamil.jpg

Given this user's history and given that there are numerous other images with either dubious or obviously deliberately fraudulent information (for example, Image:Shriyanew.JPG has a fraudulent email exchange copy-and-pasted and slightly edited from Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG), I have blocked this user indefinitely and plan on deleting all image uploads from this user. Given that we know we cannot trust the information this user provides, I believe it is safest for Wikipedia simply to ditch all the images.

I am sorry to have to have taken these steps but in my opinion, the actions of this user have placed the Wikipedia in danger. I welcome any constructive comments about this situation. --Yamla 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support this move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's the second time I've seen this. Please block aggressively for this sort of activity; it's wilfully and deliberately malicious. Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Total support. -- Nick ^t 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a photographer myself I appreciate your aggressive pursuit of copyright issues. Just a comment here, when I give permission to use my artwork, I send one of half-a-dozen form responses, and I send them from various names/websites, depending upon where the request originated. However, it appears you have handled this correctly by contacting the sites, rather than making an assumption, and erring towards deletion (they can be uploaded again if necessary). In the end, though, it doesn't matter, the user had already been banned from editing Wikipedia under another name. Again, I do appreciate your working to honor others' copyright by deleting all of the images uploaded by this user. People think a camera makes everyone a photographer, so pictures on the Internet are up for grabs--neither assumption should be part of Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Prince Godfather's talk page for abusing of the unblock template and also for making legal threats on his talk page while blocked. [34]. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and claims of COI

A small set of editors have been making an increasing number of personal attacks on me, claiming that I have some sort of unspecific conflict of interest, and that they therefore can revert my edits. Most recently I have even been called a "POV pusher" (with a conflict of interest) in an edit summary. [35] This follows on the heels of similar accusations from a small number of editors. [36] [37] I'm a fairly patient editor, but this constant abuse of the WP:COI guidelines as a way of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF really needs to stop. If you throw enough mud, some of it eventually sticks, so I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future. Just letting everyone know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what they think the "conflict of interest" is based on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no idea, but COI has been the "new sexy policy" editors have been trying to enforce. I have no idea when it first started, but I did see some applications of it around December of last year. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious. Jayjg is passionate about improving Wikipedia , yet he none the less edits it in a direct conflict of interest. You can't edit what you deeply care about and for him this includes all of Wikipedia. For shame Jayjg. WAS 4.250 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and yet I am unrepentant. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Anyone can have an area of expertise and should certainly edit in those areas as long as they follow Wikipedia policy. Should Colonel Saunders be editing the Kentucky Fried Chicken page? No. Is this the same thing? No. Elizmr 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Colonel Sanders turns up to edit from the grave, we should consider letting him since I'm not sure he'd be violating COI either being that he is no longer in a position to benefit financially or otherwise. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless of course he faked his own death, moved to Belize, and has taken a discrete but significant cut of KFC's profit every year since. In that case he should be blocked on sight.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're going to block people who you are in a conflict with? Isn't that, you know, a conflict of interest? Hbdragon88 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

COI occurs when making an article biased would lead to personal gain (e.g. money for some quackery treatment, votes for politicians). I cannot see how Jayjg editing the Ahmedinejad article would achieve that. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hbdragon was using "conflict of interest" in a manner different from WP:COI; he was using it as a way of pointing out Wikipedia's policy that you do not use administrative functions on editors with whom you are in conflict. You ask others to investigate and take appropriate action. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that it's obvious that Jay's supposed "conflict of interest" is that he is Jewish. Jay is an editor, not an ethnicity, and trolls other editors who can't or won't make that distinction need such "educational blocks" in order to make that perfectly clear. <<-armon->> 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense from Gerash. Not surprising seeing as he called me a racist on this very noticeboard for noting that Iran does not play cricket, as well as accusing me of perpetrating "Zioattacks". In any case, by Gerash's reasoning, he may be in CoI himself on the MA article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this attacking of good editors making good edits under the guise of WP:COI seems to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and [[WP:AGF]. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see how you establish Jayjg as a Jew. His user page does not say that he is, so unless he stated it elsewhere, I do not know how you reach this conclusion.

What I do know from my experiences with Jayjg is that he doesn't usually AGF and can be somewhat uncivil ('snappy'). I can provide diffs for these problems if you need them, but looking at the archives for Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be easier & more informative, since they are rather lengthy conversations. I'm no expert, but I think this won't happen if he becomes more respectful towards other users. He assumed bad faith by writing off other users as "apologists," and often justified his editing as counteracting these supposed apologists. While it is possible that some users may be apologists, to assume that that they are is not AGF, and acting based upon this assumption yield edits that are controversial to editors who do not agree with this assumption. I did ask him once to back up his "apologist" assertion. He provided some diffs, but the only example that made sense was for User:Sarastro777, who barely edits there anyway. Even if some editors are apologists, that should not justify edits; as Jossi quoted, and I now paraphrase, 'address the edit not the editor'. Jayjg would also make insinuative comments (insinuative towards me as an editor), but when I tried to address this incivility, he would hide behind the "talk about the article content" line. It makes no sense that I should be attacked, but not allowed to defend myself, and that he gave me the whole "talk about the article content" thing is just hypocritical since I was simply responding to his not-content insinuations. So, in sum, he should simply drop this practice of making edits in response to perceived "apologists."

Also, Jayjg should try to reach consensus with those who he is in disagreement with rather than simply insisting that he is right for his own reasons, and then enforcing his own opinion on how the article should be. In other words, he should be more compromising when discussing with other editors.

Another point, that is minor but I found amusing, is citing "per talk" when there is no consensus on the talk page for the action [38]. The problem, of course, being that the consensus simply wasn't there. He had been against the 'Easter Egg', but should not remove it simply because he didn't like it, and he definitely should not edit per a talk page not authorizing consensus on the matter. It became clear that he did not like it, not for being an 'Easter Egg', but because it linked to the section that explained the translation issue. This is clear because he was willing to keep the link only if it pointed to a different spot.

While I am sure Jayjg is probably a great editor in general, he has had issues on at least the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. I urge you other administrators not to let him give "educational" bans to the various editors who he has had conflicts. Obviously, they reached some conclusions & expressed them inappropriately (as far as COI goes), but it would be unfair to punish them for their statements while leaving Jayjg 'uneducated'.

Calling other editors "apologists" is itself an accusation of COI, akin to those accusations against Jayjg that led to this ANI. For one, Jayjg should not give any of the these proposed bans himself. More importantly, if the editors who have unfairly accused Jayjg of COI are given "educational" bans, Jayjg should also be given an "educational" ban of length greater than or equal to theirs for his "apologist" accusations (and other AGF violations) because they too were unfair accusations of COI & bad faith.

I hope Jayjg reads this & considers improving his behavior in the ways I have touched upon here. Thanks. The Behnam 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hope he ignores all of it; it's a very out-of-place diversion from the original point, which is that of improper allegations of conflict of interest. Regarding the "educational blocks", handle it like I've handled other editor's allegations of vandalism: I first made it clear to him that unjustified accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks; after a bit more of it, I said explicitly that the next time he called someone a vandal and I disagreed, I'd block him for 30 days (he'd already been blocked more than once for incivility and personal attacks, so the long period was justified.) The next time I saw him referring to other editors (in this case, Blnguyen was one, as it turned out), I invoked the block I'd warned him about. He's whining and claiming abuse, but that's hardly surprising. Unjustified accusations of COI are not as extreme as unjustified accusations of vandalism, but they are still tantamount to personal attacks if not backed up with copious proof. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is plenty relevant. Jayjg falls into the same group of 'improper COI allegers' and therefore should be 'educated' along with them. The Behnam 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether Jay is or isn't Jewish, it's that the editors harassing him think so. That is, unless you're suggesting that maybe they think he's a Christian Zionist. This seems unlikely to me. Being an "apologist" usually entails making excuses, and is not the same as a COI. <<-armon->> 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the Jew versus Christian Zionist dichotomy comes from. I have seen a dichotomy on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page form that is basically "ZioAttackers" versus "Ahmadinejad Apologists" (to use each sides' disparaging description of the other). Anyway, "Apologist" is how he described us, and it is much more than simply making excuses. If we are "apologists" for Ahmadinejad, we have an obvious conflict of interest with the neutral editing policy, because as apologists we want to make Ahmadinejad look good & refute/downplay criticism of him, which aren't neutral goals. This is the basic reason behind considering the accusation of "apologist" akin to the accusation of COI. And from there, it only is right that Jayjg be 'educated' for the same wrongdoing. The Behnam 04:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues you are describing are relevant to POV rather than COI. I've seen these COI accusations thrown around and completely agree that they contradict WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg and I have often disagreed about an edit, but in my experience he has always based his position on Wikipedia policy or good style. As with all Wikipedians there are some areas in which he has greater expertise than others. But I have never seen a conflict of interest and I have never seen him push a particular POV - at most I have seen valid disagreements over what may constitute NPOV, a reliable source, or relevance to an article that can easily be resolved through discussion ... this is thus most mundane fodder of editing ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is rather transparent that a group of editors (none of whom have any kind of importance in the eyes of the community) are attempting to engage in a character assasination of a good wikipedian solely on the back of a baseless charge that they are trying to proof by assertion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this kind of disparaging comment about the other users really necessary? Of course there are a lot of people who like Jayjg. But it seems there are also users who do not like him. What you just wrote seems kind of no-value-added. What does "trying to proof by assertion" mean anyway? What are you referring to? The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I now see that WP:COI is much more specific in its scope than 'conflict of interest' is in general usage. I think that these people are improperly alleging COI because they don't realize that COI applies pretty much just to company & autobiographical situations. In that case I definitely take back my conclusion that Jayjg is an 'improper COI alleger', though the situations I brought up still constitute at least a consistent violation of AGF without any regard to repeated requests to AGF & be civil (on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Perhaps this is a common mistake? I believe I have seen other people refer to the policy when describing 'general' usage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Anyway, knowing this, I think that the people should receive good explanations as to why they are wrong in their COI claims before something severe like 'educational' blocks are applied. Their problems with with Jayjg seem to be, in reality, about perceived POV/bias matters, so they should simply receive an explanation as to why they are improperly classifying their issue. Unless they actually think that Jayjg has some sort of autobiographical, corporate, government, etc affiliation. Then they should bring real proof or completely drop the charges. In sum, the COI allegations could easily be mistakes over the scope of COI, so the 'educational' block seems unnecessary, harsh, and will not actually fix the problem. And, if it is done by Jayjg, will be a blatant abuse of power. The Behnam 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have actually read WP:COI before commenting on it; what do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that "conflict of interest" must mean more than "has an opinion about something". Else we are all barred from editing everything. If Jay's "conflict of interest" is that he generally supports Israel and dislikes Ahmadinejad, then the accusations are meaningless. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to be mistaken in confusing a bias claim with conflict of interest. How does this warrant 'educational' blocks? How do those blocks educate them? A good explanation is much better. Perhaps Jayjg is frustrated with their improper claims, but I simply do not see what a block will do other than provoke them & cause more conflict. Of course, he'd win out in any such conflict (since he is 'important in the eyes of the community'), but the aim should be to encourage other editors to mend their ways rather than provoke them into a graver violation. Doesn't always work (User:Kiumars), but a better start than this apparently useless 'education'. The Behnam 15:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These editors are long-term violators who are unrepentant in their attacks. Education, entreaties and admonitions have already failed. Escalating the consequence is the next logical step. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, this seems like another example of when people cannot get their POV pushed across wikipedia (and rightfully so), they engage in trying to destroy the credibility of the wiki guardian in order to eliminate the obstacle to their attempted violations. I will agree that Jay, at times, has ben curt. But who wouldn't be if they were the target of as much improper accusations, allegations, argumentum ad hominem, name-calling, and other nonsense. I think we can all agree Jay is human, and has bad days as well as good ones. But looking at his overall prodigious wiki history (including ArbCom) there are FEW editors in wikipedia who have done more to KEEP the balance, the peace, and uphold the guidelines and policies of wiki than Jayjg. Unfortunately, the bigger the target, the easier it is to fling garbage at it :( -- Avi 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricardocolombia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), New York City

Resolved

User:Ricardocolombia is putting the {{copyvio}} template on top of the New York City article, alledging This article is full of copyvio's from three books: "I love NYC", "New York New York" and "The great apple" (1) I take copyright violations extremely seriously, but this article has been edited extensively by Wikipedians for a long time and I'm skeptical of such allegations (2) I searched on Amazon and Google Books and can't find any book called The Great Apple (3) I searched excerpts of the article on Google Books and found nothing (4) it's always possible that a book or website took text from Wikipedia and not the other way around. I have reverted three times, asking the user to discuss on the talk page and provide specifics. He refuses to do so. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If he refuses to discuss it, he's not helping anything. I find it odd the books don't appear to exist either. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

His messages on my talk page pretty much amount to legal threats. --Aude (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really; he's saying he'll "file a report" with WMF, not that he'll sue them/you (and he would have no standing to sue, obviously). He's behaving incredibly inappropriately, but he hasn't made a LT. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask for page numbers from the books, and publication info (date, publisher, author, year) so that someone with a good library can verify. If he doesn't have the info, we can't pursue this as we are not mind readers. Thatcher131 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped for now. We have asked for that information, but he isn't responding. I'm not the least bit concerned about the threats, but help watching the page would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone blocked him. The situation is moot for now. --Aude (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for personal attacks

Am I confused? I know that blocking people for isolated personal attacks is not a proper action. But when somebody develops a pattern of personal attacks, and has been warned, and warned again, and warned about being block for it, then keeps doing it, surely a block is warranted? Am I missing something? I have been getting grief over 2 blocks I did today, both people had multiple warnings about personal attacks, and continued to do it. I just don't understand what I have done wrong here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(copied from a thread higher on the page to centralize discussion here:) I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, I don't think anyone is defending personal attacks. The questions are, what constitutes a personal attack, and what constitutes a blockable personal attack. I do not endorse, by any means, all the language used and comments made by the two users you blocked today. But we administrators are supposed to have thicker skins sometimes; and comments made in the context of discussing administrator actions, or on a user's own talkpage in response to an admin's comments there, may deserve a bit more leeway than might otherwise obtain. I would have strongly deprecated the comments made today, but I would have walked away rather than block for them. Of course these are often judgment calls. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is the course of actions leading to the short block I gave: (from my original block message)"By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel". You made a personal attack this morning[39], I warned you about personal attacks[40], you made another personal attack[41], then I had to warn you again[42], now you have made yet another personal attack[43], and I have blocked you for it[44] for 24 hours. Please do not engage in personal attacks once this block has expired. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see somebody insulting people all day long, and not responding to warnings, then getting blocked for it. The block was preventative because I had every reason to believe he would continue. My skin is plenty thick and I never got angry, this was simply me enforcing policy. I do not think that "the situation" justifies personal attacks, any situation. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename Wikipedia:No personal attacks to Wikipedia:Only a few personal attacks, as long as they are not too bad. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree that thicker skins are needed. If I blocked everyone who got annoyed and used inappropriate language, half the editors on Wikipedia would be blocked.

Secondly, the incideents in question were on places like the editor's own Talk page and WP:AN/I; that's surely much less important than if they were made on article Talk pages, or even on another editor's Talk page. In other words, did it really matter to Wikipedia if he continued? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Personal attacks are okay in certain places? All I can do is read the policy and follow it, how do I learn these unwritten rules about talk pages being exempt from NPA? To answer you question, yes it matters, slinging insults drives away editors, and creates a hostile atmosphere. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)If this is about judgment calls, the please respect my judgment. But if I have gone against some sort of well established rule please point it out and I will repent. As far as I know if a user has a full set of NPA warnings then a NPA block is justified if the user continues. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if you hadn't blocked, someone might have given up on Wikipedia in disgust, but because you did.... 81.179.115.188 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your info I am not giving up anything. Yes, someone might leave if they keep getting insulted. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack. Experienced editors should know better, and Dbuckner didn't seem to even consider backing off when he was asked to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Being called pompous is not necessarily a personal attack. Like I said on Dbuckner's talk page, that was his opinion of you and, yes, you did have an attitude, even to me. You say that you are a laid back person, yet, I haven't seen that once today. If everyone got blocked for calling someone a name, 75% of editors would be blocked every day. "Sticks and stones man......" MetsFan76 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If that were the only comment, it would of course not warrant blocking. I count three or more others though, despite requests to cut them out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that I took it personally. It is just me enforcing policy. What I take personally is the accusation that I had some sort of childish motive. I would not tolerate that behavior from a new user, why should I take it from an established user who knows better. Even if calling me pompous is not an attack calling a bunch of editors fuckwits is, and that was the first final warning I gave him. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You say to him "Don't call me names." That sounds personal to me. If someone called me a name, I would look at the person and feel pity as he/she needs to stoop to a low intelligence level. And again, I don't think being called pompous is so bad. You gave me an attitude as well on his talk page. MetsFan76 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be personal, if a) I cared, and b) it was not against policy. The fact is a) it didn't hurt my feelings, b) it is against policy. For god sake, I have been enforcing the NPA policy for months, and I have never had a complaint. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, don't worry about it. Everyone has different standards for when repeated personal attacks reach the level of blockable disruption... and for far too many people those standards seem largely dependent on who the person is and who they are insulting. At 'worst' you applied a strict standard for civility - while adhering to that standard yourself despite considerable provocation. Hardly worthy of condemnation, though varying degrees of 'disagreement' are inevitable. Worldtraveller, Dbuckner, Giano II, and even MetsFan76 have clearly engaged in insults over this issue and ought to cut it out. If they continue you can always ask another admin to step in to spare yourself yet more attacks for stopping their bad behaviour. --CBD 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to take a Wikibreak when this issue came up. I just want to assure people that I am acting out of policy and not the petty motives being attributed to me. Goodbye, I will see you all at a later time, not sure when. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CDB, can you provide diffs as to where I have insulted someone today please? I don't think you are in any position to tell me to "cut it out" as I have not once insulted anyone today. MetsFan76 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that calling HighInBC "pompous" and suggesting that he was acting under the influence of drugs were not insults we will have to disagree. --CBD 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HighinBC was acting like a child because someone called him a name. As an admin, he should have a "thicker hide" and set a better example. In terms of him being under the influence of drugs, I got that directly from his user page which has now been conveniently blanked. MetsFan76 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CDB, I am still waiting for my diffs. If you are going to make an accusation like that, I would like you to provide evidence that I have insulted anyone today. MetsFan76 23:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Add "acting like a child" to the list of insults you supposedly haven't made today. No, his user page did not say that he blocked Dbuckner because he was drug addled... that was all you, 'extrapolating' from his pro-marijuana comments. As to diffs... I provided a diff for the drugs comment and the other two insults were made (or repeated) by you right here in this thread. Surely you can find the statements on this page where you said it was ok to call him pompous and that he was acting like a child.

Yes, admins should have thick hides. No, that doesn't mean a bunch of users can get together and insult them with impunity. Just discuss things in a civil fashion without the insults. --CBD 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You just insulted me right then. I told you why I took those actions, I told you I was not upset at the name calling, I told you the block was based on policy. Then you say "HighinBC was acting like a child because someone called him a name.", I don't think you know what a personal attack is. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I insulted you?? And yes, he was acting like a child. I find it very immature that he blocks two people today and then goes on a wikibreak. That is not very responsible at all. If he can't handle criticism, then maybe he is in the wrong business here. MetsFan76 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to repeatedly being called a "fuckwit" with a mild warning about personal attacks IS 'handling criticism' fairly well. As is the way he has dealt with your repeated insults. Eventually blocking when the incivility went on and on is a debatable matter, but I don't think there can be any question that HighInBC has remained considerably more civil than various of his detractors. Including you. At least, I haven't seen him calling you "immature". --CBD 00:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course he isn't going to call me immature, I haven't acted as such. My problem was that WT decided to leave hours ago, yet, you continued to pursue the matter by not dropping it. I'm sorry but that doesn't say much about you when the issue has already been dealt with. MetsFan76 00:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WT posted to this thread just a short while ago (as an anon) and people have continued to complain in the discussion you falsely claim was dealt with and dropped. Basically, this spiel you keep repeating about how 'everyone has dropped it and you keep dragging it out' just isn't true. You, amongst several others, certainly haven't dropped it. If you believe that 'saying nothing is the best course' you could try following it yourself. --CBD 00:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CBD, do you see what you just did? This is one of the problems on Wikipedia and why someone like Worldtraveller wrote an article such as WP:FAIL. People here sometimes are too quick to get their thoughts down that they don't bother to read what other people have written. If you scrolled all the way down, you will see that me, Giano and HighinBC have resolved our dispute. In fact, HighinBC sent me a personal email which I greatly appreciated. What you just did was why some editors resort to personal attacks. The issue here has been dropped yet, you have continued it. You are doing it now and you did it before with WT. You push people to the point where they are going to resort to harsh words. It seems as if you would rather not has this resolved but continue going back and forth with mindless drivel. If you do not have anything constructive to say in this matter (which has been resolved) then I suggest you back off. If, however, you are looking to start something with me, feel free to email me as I do not think any further discussion here is necessary. If your prefer not to, then I am done talking to you. MetsFan76 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going on wikibreak for unrelated reasons. I am taking time off my wikibreak to deal with this, how is that immature? I think you simply disagree with me so you are calling me childish. Stop calling me names, or anyone else for that matter, it is against our WP:NPA policy. If you need insults to make your point, perhaps you should rethink it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't need insults at all. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. Try it sometime. Enjoy your break. MetsFan76 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the two of you have made your points and it would be good to have some other input on this issue. HighInBC, you should know that your work here is valued even by some of us who might disagree with a particular block. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brad - as astute as ever. Can I just say this is becoming a little farcical were it not for one of Wikipedia's finest editors leaving. CBDunkerson and HighinBC are begining to sound like Laurel and Hardy why don't they just unblock everybody, you and I will try to pursuade World that they were just inexperienced and to come back, then we can all have a nice cup of tea and get over it. Giano 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I will apologize if anyone has felt insulted by me today. I would like to help persuading World to come back as well. As for that tea, can I have a shot of scotch with mine because I need it. =) MetsFan76 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No we want no hard liquor or noxious substances on a Sunday. Giano 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will take a rain check for tommorow =) MetsFan76 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I gladly except your apologies, I have tried to urge Worldtraveller to come back earlier today[45], his response was not promising[46]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best if you didn't try again. Me and Giano will handle it. MetsFan76 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Don't you worry about in HighInBC, we'll handle it Giano 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure it's been said by others, but I cannot pass up the chance to go on the record again. Blocks for "personal attacks" should be so rare as to be shocking. They should be exceptional. They should be because of things that simply are so far beyond the pale as to be unconscionable. They should be for saying that X is the Zodiac killer. They should not be for "defiance." They should not be for four letter words. After all, some people (including me) can be very insulting without ever using a dirty word. Some people (including me) can be calculatingly belittling. Some people (including me) can push the right buttons to make the other person want to explode in anger. Other people can do the same with hitting the "block" button.
• Argumentum ad block is not a valid argument. You cannot win by blocking. The blocking policy makes this clear enough. Therefore, a person making you angry and angrier and angriest is not a reason for blocking. It's a reason to call a cop -- to call in a third party.
• So, no blocks for "personal attacks" unless you can define what is and is not a personal attack, how much of an attack makes a block, how much of a block goes with what level of 'attack' and, most of all, a good explanation of how Wikipedia was harmed and productivity inhibited by that "attack."
• Because of the exceptional misuse and misreading of WP:NPA (which shouldn't be policy at all, as it says virtually nothing), most of AN/I is "block X for insulting me!" More, people are going around poking at others to get them to utter a dirty word so that they can be blocked. Others are blocked and then, when the blocked person gets angry, have that anger used as justification for a bigger block. That's insane! Other people are going around with their radar dishes spinning, hunting for an insult anywhere and everywhere. Way, way, way above I tried to wittily satirize HighinBC in my comment on unblocking by using the word "high" in several combinations. It was playful, but it was intended to express an opinion. On the other hand, on my talk page right now, HighinBC is worried that, when I said I didn't want to get into an electronic tarbaby argument, that I was making a racial slur. You have to break syntax to even get a racial slur in there, and the main meaning was straightforward. Now, he didn't threaten to block me, but that kind of alert and tripwire sensitivity to anything that might be an attack is really not helpful to our productivity.
• At least that's my view. Geogre 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Geogre, we already know your view. :) I think that there have to be consequences to personal attacks. They are inherently disruptive because they negatively affect the frame of mind of other people trying to edit in peace. Warnings and short blocks are quite justified. Let's side with the people who are defending the tone of Wikipedia, not the people who undermine it.

Then again, I suppose everyone already knows that's what I think. Also, I'm not talking about defending the kind of hair-trigger actions we have seen in the past from a small number of high-profile admins who won't be named. But this "Oh no, someone blocked a poor uncivil user!! Let's all play the violin!" mentality doesn't help, either. Let other admins do their job and use their discretion unless they develop a pattern of trying to act like petty tyrants, in which case the community will eventually bring them back into line, as we've seen in the past. Metamagician3000 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, In general we don't block for personal insults. IIRC It has never been a part of the blocking policy until last fall when "persistent personal insults" was added (I see it's just been removed again, and then put back). These types of blocks used to come under "disruption", and you had to make that determination.

In some of your comments you seem to be asking for hard and fast rules. Use your judgment instead: is the block preventative? Is it going to do more harm than good? Is the user a juvenile little prick trying to run someone down, or is he a great editor who gets exasperated once in a while? Before you block a productive editor for disruption (personal attacks) try to interact with them to find out if they are in the midst of a legitimately complaint or if they are just trying to cause trouble. If it's the former, a block will nearly always make things worse. While productive editors almost never do the latter.

CBD mentions above that some admin's blocks "seem largely dependent on who the person is and who they are insulting". This is absolutely right. Would you treat a 14yr old who comes here, without doing anything productive, and calls every one a "fuckwitt" the same as a great featured article writer who blows his top from time to time? Put the interest of the project first when you make these decisions. --Duk 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes edit conflict again—well, it can't be helped, I'll just reply to HighinBC and Metamagician3000 as I intended (and thank you for your sensible words, Duk). Metamagician, what about the productive users being driven off while "eventually" plays out? How long an eventuality can the project afford? I want to ask HighinBC (as I asked CBD above, which went over like a ton of bricks, so why not try again) to exercise his imagination—to put himself in another person's place—while I play the violin myself if necessary. HBC, when I posted a polite message on your page some hours after you blocked dbuckner, urging you to at least take the block to ANI for review, you told me "I can't believe this shit"[47] and then promptly "archived"[48] mine along with several other messages on the same theme—well, actually just deleted them (there are no archives) but no matter. I won't quote your pronouncements today about civility back at you. I'll be glad to overlook your calling my message shit and deleting it. I assume you were a little stressed and upset. But please consider that you lengthened Worldtraveller's block because he was a little upset (he'd just been blocked by CBD! He was probably very upset!) You blocked Dbuckner for being a little upset. And you have made up a perverse rule—I'm sorry if you don't like that way of putting it—you thought there was a rule?— about how it's extra criminal to be upset while you're blocked: ".. it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked." Standard? While asking to be unblocked? What standard is that? No, the standard is to have "extra" patience with users who have just been shocked by a block. Altogether, it's standard for admins to look the other way if a blocked user loses his/her temper, because it's a natural thing to do. It's standard for admins, decent ones, to be less sensitive on their own account than on behalf of other people. If that's playing the violin, we need a bigger string section. We have the buttons for the defense of Wikipedia, not for our personal fights. Enough with the "personal attack blocks" already, HighinBC, everybody. Please. Let's use the buttons with fellow-feeliing and imagination. And now I'm going to unblock Dbuckner, because there's no way the project is at risk of being "disrupted" by him. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

My two cents: I agree that we need to give people who are blocked some space and steam to vent on their talk pages without considering it a personal attack or incivility. This is not to suggest that we let them go berzerk there, but I would suggest that everyone keep in mind that if they play ball with the block (only edit their own talk page) there's little damage to prevent by blocking for longer if they get upset at people - nobody is forced to go read the blocked users' talk page. If they make severe attacks, that's a different case. But I would suggest that allowing them slightly more leeway than a normal incivility block, under these specific circumstances, and limited to their talk page, is in the interests of the project as a whole. It gives people space to vent, which is important. People get upset about being blocked, even if the blocks are completely called for. We need to be able to block without it escalating into a functional ban or driving people away. Georgewilliamherbert 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with being very lenient on blocks for personal attacks, especially those directed at yourself. Indeed, I don't think I've ever blocked anyone solely for personal attacks. However, there comes a point where persistent attacks, incivility, and/or harassment have to be stopped. Because it IS disruptive to the project. Bishonen, you are wrong in claiming that Dbuckner wasn't being disruptive... you said yourself that you assume HighInBC was stressed/upset by the attacks on him. Yes, that argues against him being the one to place the blocks, but it also demonstrates how such incivil behaviour harms the project. And Dbuckner didn't just do it once, but over and over again. At some point it has to be stopped. There will always be disagreements about precisely at what point the disruption from incivility outweighs the benefits of tolerance, but IMO when multiple people have told you repeatedly to stop and you don't then a block is the proper response. People have to be able to control their tempers and act civilly when asked to do so. If they won't do that then they need to be blocked to prevent their continual incivil behaviour from provoking more of the same. --CBD 12:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to endorse the unblocking of Dbuckner and Worldtraveller. The block of Worldtraveller was a very bad idea, and was quite surprising, coming from someone who shows a lot of sensitivity about the vulnerability of users who are being reverted, hassled, and threatened when they remove unwanted comments from their talk pages. Surely, CBD, you can see that for a productive, established user, a block for anything other than 3RR is a shock, an insult, a slap in the face. Blocks for disruption are meant to be extremely rare, and used only in cases where it could be reasonably considered that not blocking would harm Wikipedia. They're absolutely not meant to be used as a "Do what you're told or I'll smack you" weapon. Worldtraveller had a very legitimate grievance. Inshaneee's original block of him was completely improper, and admins have been desysopped for such things. I've looked at this "harassment", and honestly, I've had worse than that from Alienus, but I didn't block him or ask anyone else to block him. An administrator who uses a block in a content dispute does not have the right not to be questioned about it, and the fact that it happened some time ago does not mean that Worldtraveller should consider it satisfactorily resolved. It would have been preferable and more dignified to have dropped it, but his not doing so was not a blockable offence. Especially refusing to drop it with an admin was not blockable, because (a) admins should be ready to publicly explain actions that are queried (unless it concerns a block of a sockpuppet or of someone who was posting personal information, in which case explanations can probably be better given privately by e-mail to senior Wikipedians), and (b) admins absolutely need to have thick skins and be able to put up with it if they feel they're being pestered. I could grudgingly accept Inshaneee's refusal to provide a proper answer, but for someone to block the aggrieved victim is extremely counterproductive. Surely the Giano affair has taught us that when someone starts making a fuss because he's annoyed at what he sees as an unfair block, it's the craziest possible solution to block him again. I'm not talking about obvious trolls — teenagers who registered last Thursday, have two article edits, and fourteen obscene edits on user talk pages. I'm talking about respected users being humiliated by a permanent record in their block logs.

As for increasing the block for being uncivil to the admin who was increasing it, that's so obviously wrong as to hardly need comment. But apart from the level of involvement, of course someone who sees himself as unfairly blocked will be upset. If he does this, then by all means, increase the block. If he lets off steam by speaking his mind against those who blocked him, then ignore it. As for HighInBC being upset, I'm sure he was, but I doubt if it was because of disruption and harassment, or because of the naughty word used. If I blocked someone and he filled his talk page with "Musical Linguist is a $&£$*£&$", I wouldn't feel undermined, but if I blocked someone and found that respected administrators were criticizing me for an improper block, I'd feel embarrassed. Please don't blame Dbuckner for HighInBC being upset. If an admin places a proper block, he shouldn't be upset if people query it, even if they refuse to drop the matter. Musical Linguist 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also gets to the point as to who is being more disruptive, the blocker or the blockee. Both WT and Dbuckner kept their cool after they received their respective blocks, however, the blocking admins continued to debate this fiasco. If the issue was done, then it should have been let go, regardless if they felt the need to defend their actions. It is not productive at all and only leads to this AN/I getting longer and longer when there are articles out there that need to be edited. Sometimes this place is no different from a playground. Just my two cents to start the day. MetsFan76 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both WT and Dbuckner "kept their cool" by making personal attacks, and your claims about the 'blockers dragging this out' are belied by your own continued (and patently false) 'campaigning' on the issues. As you call everything I say in response to you proof that >I< am 'dragging it out' I think I will just have to ignore you going forward. --CBD 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to scroll up and read what I wrote to you yesterday (00:43, 5 March 2007 ). And yes, you are dragging it out. It's two days now and you are continuing this. Drop it. MetsFan76 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(overlapping edits, response to Musical Linguist) I actually agree with most of what you say, but strongly disagree about ongoing harassment. Yes, Worldtraveller had every reason to be upset. Yes, he had every reason to request an explanation. Even continuing to pester InShaneee about it was 'ok' (though not good) up to a point. However, nobody has the right to continue harassing another user indefinitely - for any reason. You are correct that 'just because two months have passed' "does not mean that Worldtraveller should consider it satisfactorily resolved"... but there is a vast difference between 'thinking it is still a problem and following dispute resolution procedures' and 'thinking it is still a problem and harassing, insulting, and threatening the other user'. I would have supported, and indeed had already actively encouraged dropping the personal attacks in favor of DR. You say that Worldtraveller's comments about InShaneee being a "witless moron", his threats to 'do everything in my power to get you de-sysoped', and the rest of it 'were not so bad'... and in comparison to some other incidents of abusive behaviour that's true (though I've also seen plenty of 'established users' blocked for alot longer than 24 hours for alot less - without fuss), but I didn't block Worldtraveller for his personal attacks or his threats. I blocked him for harassment. InShaneee had made it clear at least two weeks earlier that he wanted to be left alone. Alot of people had told Worldtraveller that it was time to leave InShaneee alone and follow DR. Worldtraveller actively refused. He insisted on his 'right' to "keep on harassing"... and I blocked him for it. I would do it again. Because I do not believe anyone should be allowed to deliberately go out of their way to try to make another user miserable on an ongoing basis over an extended period of time. Not for any reason. It's unconscionable and offensive. Worldtraveller had options for civilly addressing his grievance and refused to use them. No one tried to force him to drop the issue, just to stop being abusive. He wanted to continue harassing InShaneee rather than to resolve the issue through DR. Wikipedia's policies don't allow such and I would not tolerate it. Finally, you bring up 'removing warnings' and my sensitivity to the concerns of those who are being 'hassled and threatened' about them... just as I am here sensitive to the fact that InShaneee was being 'hassled and threatened' by Worldtraveller, who I then blocked only when he openly refused to stop. --CBD 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is becoming clear that I have stepped into the area where people wish to change Wikipedia, as opposed to making a mistake on my own. The NPA policy, and what I did, are in line. It is the way other people want the NPA policy to read that I violated. Well the correct place to campaign for such change is on the NPA talk page. I consider this matter closed, if I offended anyone by archiving too early I am sorry. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are incorrect. The policy is clear that personal attacks may result in blocks in extreme cases. Taking away from all of this that you are perfectly correct and all these people (most of the admins for a really long time) want to "change Wikipedia" is precisely the wrong lesson and will lead to further trouble. If you get nothing else from the experience, get this: you should not block for insults. Geogre 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At the same time, I hope we can agree that personal attacks are never an acceptable mode of communication. We've discovered, however, that even asking someone to be civil is itself a breach of civility--that's the lesson I've taken from the last three months. So, is WP:NPA a dead letter? Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My view is that NPA merely said that we don't go around insulting each other. No one disagrees with that, but it also doesn't say much, which is why I regarded it as a non-starter. Of course we shouldn't be insulting and hateful. That's not really a problem. The problem is what happens next. I don't think that asking people to be civil is incivil, but I do think that throwing templates at people is insulting. "What, you can't talk to me, like a person? You have to treat me like an anon getting scolded?" is perfectly reasonable as a reaction to a template. At any rate, I absolutely agree that no one should be going around insulting, nor running to AN/I when insulted. We need to make NPA a real policy by saving it for serious personal attacks (e.g. mentioning real details of a real person's person). Geogre 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC, you may be able to build a rationale to block someone for "persistent personal attacks" that is in line with policy, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. You always have to apply judgment. The same goes for blocks based on "disruption". Blocking long time editors for personal attacks almost always makes matters worse. To clarify what I wrote before, personal insults have never been a part of the blocking policy until last fall when "persistent personal attacks" was added (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was a clause for "Personal attacks which place users in danger", but this is different and out of the scope of what we are talking about.

So lets look at the last few days of edits by the person who added the "persistent personal attacks" to the block policy: ass clownery, delete nominator, Shut up and quit being a disgrace, Ah, I see you're a different attention-seeking pissant entirely. My mistake. Do you think he should be blocked for "persistent personal attacks"? Do you think you should apply this policy equitably and block this user like you did Dbuckner. Here's the answer - be equitable, don't block either of these editors. --Duk 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Just for the record, I would prefer you all to stop referring to my 'personal attacks'. Personal criticisms maybe. I find a rude and impertinent message left on my talk page. This interchange followed (which I have cut and pasted onto my page because the other user has deleted it from his). You can see that I criticised this user's actions, his general lack of manners, and that was all. What followed was hardly proportionate. edward (buckner) 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people should have thick skins, and no one wants to hear constant whinging about how so-and-so called me ignorant last week so please block them. But if someone's cautioned to stop getting personal by an uninvolved admin, and doesn't stop, then a block is hard to argue with. An editor who won't back off personal attacks despite a warning is likely to escalate to more serious disruption and drag in other editors, and aren't blocks supposed to be preventive? By the way, the excuse that "I didn't call you a fuckwit, I just suggested that you were acting in a manner analagous to that in which a fuckwit might be expected to behave" strikes me as wikilawyering. MastCell 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007 (talk · contribs) trolling? WP:POINT?

Parker007 (talk · contribs) has made several odd, somewhat disruptive edits: S/He has nominated the Misc ref desk for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposal_to_remove_Misc_desk_.40_Village_Pump and s/he's inviting editors to oppose her/his RfA. [49] [50] Looks like WP:POINT to me (making an unpopular move in order to garner oppose votes). I don't know if any action should be taken. Anchoress 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall Parker going on a WP:POINT spree a month ago when I deleted something of his as redundant, so this isn't a new thing for him. – Steel 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the current consensus on snowballing failing RfA's? His is at 1/11/0 at the moment. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind SNOW; if the applicant is actively campaigning against promotion, it's a bad-faith (self)-nom. Anchoress 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I delisted and closed it. Trebor 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There was (is? my killfile does not tell me) a troll called "Parker Peters" on WikiEN-l for some time who claimed, without much credibility, to be an admin. I wonder if this is related? Guy (Help!) 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Had this hunch after my last contact with him, but he wasn't doing anything disruptive at the time; maybe time to see if that blip on the troll radar is the real thing. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cman (talk · contribs) owning talk page, civility issues

Please see his talk page User_talk:Cman. He owns it and erases an ongoing discussion to which three users contributed, and his message at the top clearly demonstrates an attempt to uncivily own the page.--Crossmr 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the person should take their own advice. Xiner (talk, email) 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see a WP:GETAGIRLFRIEND article, nor are we in the business of helping with that, so perhaps we should address this another way? :) --Crossmr 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well to quote Waylon Smithers, women and Cman don't mix. Anchoress 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

B2bomber81 (talk · contribs)

• B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abuse of power, intimidation of new user including baseless accusations and harrassment. --Memejojo 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  — Memejojo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs please?--Crossmr 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message at User talk:B2bomber81 and User talk:Tuxide, please be reminded that only administrators can impose cooling off periods. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Memejojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just a strange user in general—I don't mean to personally attack him, but he is new (assuming he's not a sockpuppet) and I don't understand his actions. He undoes WP:MOSHEAD edits on Best Buy claiming it's vandalism [51], edits others comments on his own talk page claiming that they slow down the server [52], and then decides to impose a 24 hour cooling off period on me and User:B2bomber81 [53] [54]. His account isn't even 24 hours old, and he can't even spell harassment correctly. Any advice on how B2bomber81 and I should deal with him would be appreciated. I was going to bring this up on WP:WQA but now that he's gone here I'll let it resolve on this board. Regards, Tuxide 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I see on his user talk page that he's being suspected of being a Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sock. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All the evidence for harrassment is there for the public to see. The cooling off period is requested in order to allow the new user to participate in peace with the Wikipedia community. The above user Tuxide seeks to make inflammatory statements however there is no evidence that the user is "strange." That would be personal opinion however it is not personal opinion that harrassment and vandalism of a user's, that is fact. This is the forum to resolve this not on content pages and we are all grateful that the users in question can be civil about this. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make the suggestion that Tuxide refrain from editing posts from other user by adding the small font mini signature that targets specific users. This is clearly intimidation and harrassment and it is surprising to some degree that it continues here on the administrators page. Besides the user in dispute is B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I respect and encourage any users making productive comments regarding this issue. --Memejojo 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the {{spa}} template is common procedure in cases like this, and like Tuxide I feel that it is appropriate here. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To state that new users have contributed to 1 article. Well isn't that something to be expected. How can one write more if they are dealing with harassment? Let's have some guidance about that from more admins. It is a healthy conversation to have and I am willing to spend as many months as it takes to resolve these issues as long as all involved also communicate in this forum in good faith. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I referred to Memejojo as a new user based on his creation log, not based on his count log. However, I don't believe that this user is new to wikipedia. I do suspect that he is a sockpuppet of blocked users Momoj and Jomomm (verified sockpuppets). My basis for this suspicion? Firstly, their names are quite similar. Secondly, Memejojo being a "new member" immediately started flaming other editors for editing his contribution to the Best Buy page. He repeated infers ownership of the article by "daring" anyone to make changes to his contributions without permission, or simply reverts the edits. I have already submitted a checkuser request for this user to determine if it is indeed a sockpuppet or not.

His last contribution included a biased comment that I requested be left out. He refused, and so I removed his contribution, asking that he refrain from reintroducing to the article until there was a consensus on the content of his contribution. I suggested he could either agree to leave his opinions out of the article or find a reliable source for his claims. I will note that Tuxide also recommended that an alternate source be used. Memejojo responded with another revert and said there is no lack of consensus.

Lastly, as Tuxide eluded to, this user is just plain strange. He refers to himself in a third person almost as if he is actually representing several people, as well as falsely representing himself as an administrator. At one point he tried to verbally impose a 24-hour cool off period on me until Tuxide reminded him that he was not an admin. He has also taken it upon himself to edit other users talk pages to remove threads that he feels aren't appropriate in his opinion. I appreciate the admins taking the time to look into this matter. B2bomber81 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to correct the course this is going and to clarify what this post is about. It is about the harrassment of a new user. It is not about what certain users wish were true but it is about what is actually true. I do not believe the admins who view this forum are swayed by false accusations. If there is concrete evidence for flamming, daring/taunting, sockpuppetry etc. let them present the evidence here and in the open. You'd think I was the devil or something. There is simply no evidence of this. One thing is for sure since opening this request for mediation B2bomber81 has ceased harrassment. I admit Tuxide used very colorful and passionate language but this forum should be reserved for facts and not rhetoric. --Memejojo 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Soap made from human corpses

Resolved

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has blanked Soap made from human corpses and reposted the article at Jewish soap legend. An administrator will be needed to fix this cut-and-paste move. (I don't know which title is more appropriate, or why HanzoHattori attempted this move to begin with.) —Psychonaut 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, though it wasn't really a cut and paste move, but rather a normal move followed by a cut and paste revert. I've left it at Soap made from human corpses. Jewish soap legend gives the incorrect impression that this is an urban legend that is Jewish in origin or that it only concerned Jewish victims. A quick Google also shows that "Jewish soap legend" seems to be a term mainly used among neo-Nazies. - SimonP 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr who1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user is making highly suspicious edits. Could someone help in correcting this vandalism? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"If in doubt, kick em out". Thats what an old administrator friend of mine used to say.Chaaaz 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Chaaaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I was simply trying to correct some misleading information within wikipeaid. The merge pages said to "be bold". Since I have met with such resistence... I will stop now. This was not vandalism. btw.. take a look at the pages he's talking about... who here is really guilty of vandalism. I will make sure to go through the proper channels now. --Dr who1975 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. I know. Thansk for the support. Clearly I'm going to have to go through the proper wiki channels on this one. There is a "movement" here.--Dr who1975 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I want to report the above named user who is shadowing me on WP. The situation has arisen from my edits on Template:Celtic_mythology, where I believed that ambiguity was introduced into the template by another editor. The above editor got involved, and is I fear that this reverting is the outset of a campaign to shadow me and revert my edits on WP. The 2 edits that I am most concerned about are [55], and [56]. I can see this disruption to my edits continuing. I hope this will not continue. Manopingo 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The editor you're concerned about, Kathryn NicDhàna, made the right call regarding the two Diffs you linked to. Your addition was unclear, unsourced, and worded awkwardly. ThuranX 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary on the first could have been more descriptive, but it is good editing. There's a note at the bottom of every edit page that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.", and we really do mean it. Jkelly 02:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please don't use the word vandalism when referring to a content dispute. Wikipedia:Vandalism has a specific meaning, and it isn't appropriate to use it to refer to good-faith edits. Jkelly 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, she used the word first. Manopingo 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Accept your call on the edits. None of the article is cited. My point is that she is shadowing. This sort of the sort of tactic can hurt the WP project, and create hostility. I would hope that you could see my substantive point. Manopingo 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You've already been particularly patronising with the editor in question on her talk page [57] [58], so there's some history there. Your edits which you mention above did not have sufficient information ("add llnk" - it was a lot more than just that, and you gave no justification whatsoever). You've also accused her repeatedly of vandalism, esp. "structured vandalism" which I think is more than a bit unfair. *And* you've been complaining about her edits on WP:IWNB [59] so just who exactly is shadowing who here? - Alison^☺ 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stand by all my edits, and I apologies I defended my edits too strongly. My concern is for the WP project. I have noticed a lot of hostility creeping into the project since I have returned after nine months absence. 'Shadowing is a form of hostility. Manopingo 02:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment --This is where the above editor called me a vandal[60]. --Manopingo 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the edits here speak for themselves. As anyone who knows my history, or even looks at my contribs can see, I edit and monitor a large number of articles on Irish and Scottish history and mythology. When a new user turns up on these articles and encounters the group of us who regularly work on them, no one is "shadowing" that new user. Multiple editors have been trying to talk to Manopingo and explain why a number of us have had to revert many of his edits. Unfortunately, this is his way of responding to that feedback. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You have never edited Cormac mac Airt before my edit. I just hope that this not a continuing effort on your part to cause hostility in the WP project. None of the article is cited, why did you not revert other editors? Manopingo 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs)

• Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Intimidation of new user Parzival418 (talk · contribs) including baseless accusations [61] and harrassment of Milomedes (talk · contribs) at Talk:Space music [62]¸ recently he has been warned here [63] and here [64].--. --Doktor Who 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked Gene not to make sockpuppet claims without following through; he has in the past sniffed out quite a few abusive socks before they were evident to others, but he's also thrown the acusation around a lot. (Disclaimer: I know him via WP for a couple of years-ish). Georgewilliamherbert 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes¸ I know¸ I discovered he had to fight serios cases¸ but I also realize that now he´s tired.....Doktor Who 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:STBotD is making mistakes

This bot is sometimes removing interwiki links that are legit. Examples include

• Dinar
• Dirham
• Direct action

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Futurebird comprimised? -- update: no, accidental edit to template

Thread retitled from "How do I deal with apparently compromised accounts?".

Resolved

I am starting to suspect that User:Futurebird's account is compromised. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Welcomevandal&action=history. However, his talk page archives and edit history show that this account normally is not a vandal. How do I deal with the situation? This is my first day as an administrator, and there is no policy that I know of on what to do about compromised accounts. Jesse Viviano 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Block on sight indefinitely with a summary such as "possible compromised account", and then ask for review. This has come up here several times before. Grandmasterka 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait just a second, it looks like they accidentally edited a transcluded template on a vandals talk page, and left them a warning, that doesn't look like vandalism at all--VectorPotential^Talk 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be way out of character for Futurebird, I've dealt with her for quite a while on another issue. I would more tend to think it's an honest error. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

looks like the template was accidentally edited by that user - Alison^☺ 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Try asking the user on his talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say I don't think this is a compromised account at all, after looking at the evidence, but I got edit conflicts. Leave them a note. Grandmasterka 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, all I can see there are two comments (4 days apart) left in a wrong place. I see no reason to think that this account is compromised. It might be a better idea to ask the user how they ended up leaving the comments there. Do section edit links in that template work as they should? Did he perchance click a section edit link on somebody's talkpage where the template wasn't substed? Zocky | picture popups 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be totally out of character for Futurebird, I've dealt with her quite a bit. Those look like mistakes rather than malice to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

...And that's why you shouldn't put section headers into a template, unless you are pretty positive it will always, always be subst'ed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake

I thought I was leaving a note for a user. Hope no serious harm was done. futurebird 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm a she! Can someone tell me how to use the template so that there is no header in it? futurebird 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Viviano told me what the problem was. I'll look out for it in the future. futurebird 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. krabs (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I suspect this is someone's sockpuppet. (Look at those contributions.) Please advise. Grandmasterka 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Probably blu himself. blah. Block him. ThuranX 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All done. —Centrx→talk • 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

I'm here on referral from WP:AIV. Not sure how to deal with this particular problem user. Is advocating some type of religious agenda; keeps creating strange nonsense pages with religious rants that get speedily deleted (which is why most of this user's history doesn't appear in their contributions page), and adds odd unsourced information & commentary to religious articles dealing with Christianity and Islam. Also edits the user pages of other editors, but I think that was a newbie mistake that nobody ever explained to this user. Also some linkspamming. Not sure what to do in this particular case...RJASE1 ^Talk 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This user seems confused (even to the point of not knowing why they get negative comments). However, I notice they still edited a user's user page after you left the note about not doing that (and they responded on your user page no less). It almost seems like willful ignorance at that point. Leebo⁸⁶ 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This message on my talk page explains the motivation. Definitely seems to be good faith, but there are so many problems here I don't know where to begin. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simmintelkeree

Resolved

I just found this RfA and it's full of forged signatures supporting Simmintelkeree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going to request speedy deletion, but I didn't know if this warranted another block. John Reaves (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef and RfA deleted. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards

Thread retitled from "Running combat".

Last one for the night (going to bed) - but take a look at contributions for these two editors:
Mjrmtg (talk · contribs)
A Man In Black (talk · contribs)
Some kind of war going on over gaming card articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the (dozens of) articles for the various expansions of Magic: the Gathering have lists of "notable cards", linking heavily to the offsite database of cards, but lacking entirely in attribution. They're just someone's idea of which cards in a set are notable, with no real definition of "notable." This kind of thing tends to be a POV and OR magnet, so I went through and started cleaning them up.

Mjrmtg commented on my talk page, rather brusquely, and I explained what I was doing and why, as well as the fact that I wouldn't really mind seeing the lists replaced in part or in whole, if they could be attributed. (I'd really rather see them converted to prose, but sources would be a start in doing that.) Further discussion has seen him accuse me of removing referenced material, with no examples, while he reverts my edits wholesale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain this one, in case anyone is curious. AMiB removed a whole bunch (read: 90% of the article) from the article of Tiberium. I asked him a bit about it, and it got heated. I explained my personal policy on how I edit articles. There was a fairly-large edit war on the article while he deleted and I restored and tried to add some ad-hoc sources before he'd delete it all again. Once I did that, AMiB checked my user history and removed or moved long-lasting articles I've had a part of. Check the histories on the following articles if you're curious. Ravnica, Concerned, All the articles in Magic: The Gathering sets, Cybran Nation, Aeon Illuminate... Bottom line: AMiB's edits aren't really about any violation. They are about removing almost everything I've done on Wikipedia, because I'm more concerned with good articles than making sure I follow WP:WAF. Scumbag 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not following WP:WAF makes the articles worse. They aren't better if you add in-universe info that leaves casual readers scratching their heads on what they were reading. The only group that likes in-universe is the fans, those who have played the game, but teeters on making it inaccessible for everybody else. Hbdragon88 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. If you'll look at the history of Tiberium, the bulk of what I've been doing with it (before the edit war, of course), I was removing stuff to make it more understandable to the kind of person that'll view it. With C&C3 coming out soon, it needed to be culled a bit. Not as much as AMiB wanted to do, however. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, FYI, have been reported to 3RR for numerous violations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As lame as this sounds, I think I need to be reported as well, since I did an edit war on Ravnica and Tiberium. Tiberium seems to have stopped though. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic blocked Mjrmtg for 24h and A Man in Black seems to have blocked himself for 31 hrs (that's taking responsibility for your own actions!) Crisis appears averted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like time for an article RfC to gauge the best way forward. Everybody seems to be acting in good faith, but with widely differing views of what's needed. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy, but I should point out that it's actually a violation of one of those rules to block yourself. <shrug> It's not a big deal, but one is not supposed to block oneself. Geogre 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Soldier9599 (talk · contribs), Drew Nutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thread retitled from "Possibly compromised account".

Resolved

• Soldier9599 (talk · contribs) hasn't had a history of vandalism up until he created the page Drew Nutter just now. Nutter appears to be the editor's real name, and the article is rather blatant and heavily racist vandalism. JuJube 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article in question along with another recently created article on a non-notable band. I don't think it's a compromised account as I have run into this editor before as he left a rather odd message on my Talk page. I don't remember running into him before that point, so I'm not sure how he ended up on my Talk page. Anyways, let's AGF since he did blank the article and see how he behaves after the article has been deleted. -- Gogo Dodo 08:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked back in November for vandalism. You can look through his contributions and see a fair amount of nonsense edits, actually. IrishGuy ^talk 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Deathrocker

I have blocked Deathrocker (talk · contribs) per his revert parole at an Arb case, here. The latest reverting were these [65] [66] [67]. These may not all be identical but the user is clearly shuffling content and reverting other users. I've blocked to 72 hours because I'd already declined to block over something like six reverts two nights ago; see Heavy Metal music history between 21:32, 3 March 2007 and 23:06, 3 March 2007. The user had received three escalating warnings from me [68] [69] [70]. If I'm reading the Arb case correctly, he could actually be blocked a week at this point. I'll let people review whether this is too much or too little. Marskell 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The heavy metal music article is at FAR, and a few editors are working on the article. I'm worried of the page turning into a revert war due to Deathrocker rather than the original intention of improving content. Really, I think Marskell's being fairly reasonable with the editor - given the amount of blocks he's recieved, he's lucky he hasn't recieved a permanent one. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, a block is warranted to prevent further edit warring. Endorse! Neil (not Proto ►) 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ray Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Ray Lopez Outbreak

Resolved

Another troll run by the guy who just can't hate me enough [[71]]. Note the use of my picture and claiming it is himself.

Stirling Newberry 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That photograph is indeed Mr. Newberry. Recommend indef block of User:Mr. Ray Lopez for impersonation. Already blocked 16 February.[72]Proabivouac 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) reported by Ragib

Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) keeps adding a huge number of external links to various wild-life related and other articles. Most of the links are to websites which are very remotely associated with the subject. For example, in an article on Mair Rajputs, he added a link to a commercial matrimonial service website, link to Punjab state Govt website etc.

The addition of huge number of external links is even more in the case of wild life related articles. Example can be seen at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, where he added up to 20 external links, taking up more than half of the entire page. Some of the links were repeated, and more than one link to same site was added. Also, links to various yahoo mailing lists were inserted in this and other articles.

I removed the redundant external links, and another user also removed some more. However, Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) keeps re-inserting the links, claiming vandalism.

Another example of adding a huge collection of tangentially related external links can be seen at the article Asiatic Lion.

I have requested the user to follow the guidelines for external links, and not to add such links per WP:NOT. However, he complains that I am biased against him as I have voted "Delete" in this AFD. He has spammed the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Protected_areas_of_India with calls for stacking "keep" votes in his favor in the AFD.

I request a neutral admin to look into the massive external linking, and communicate with this editor. Apparently, whatever advice I provide is taken as "discrimination", "vandalism" etc by him. Thank you. --Ragib 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the very definition of spamming, but has the user been shown Wikipedia:External links? Leebo⁸⁶ 11:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved with Atulsnischal for exactly the same reason. In the past i have pruned down the links and helped him use inline cites for the most relevant. Nevertheless, give it a month or two and all the links are back. In addition they are poorly formatted. David D. (Talk) 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from this message given in early January, he has been informed about this two months ago. Same kind of link spamming can be seen at Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project [73], Gir Forest National Park [74] etc. articles. --Ragib 11:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And from the link you give above, I had interpreted it to mean he understood how to do the links correctly. But, after commenting in that section he continued on as before. David D. (Talk) 11:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge number of redirects

Redirects are cheap but do we need so many of them as in : [75]? Alex Bakharev 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:05Z

Ha ha ha ha Merbabu 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwern (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (User:Gwern/Bot) that's creating redirects with all permutations of case variations with edit summaries saying articles are linking to them, but I don't see those articles. Also it seems to be buggy, creating loops or indirect redirects and creating redirects starting with "!" (was that supposed to be a blacklist thing?). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:10Z

And many of the redirects are doubles and/or malformatted (so that they aren't detected as redirects). --ais523 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I rouged them up a little. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive responce to blp warning

Was sent this abusive message by DavidCharlesII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for a blp warning (removed by user in question) over these edits. As you can see from the talk page (Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss) there have been multiple attempts to defame the articles subject and has been pointed out that unsourced criticism is inapropriate. (Also tried rfc etc.) If abusive posts such as above are not to be reported here, what should be done?  ⇒ bsnowball  14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chaaaz & Nomen Nescio

I suspect that User:Chaaaz is a sockpuppet of Nomen Nescio. He was created simply to put a comment on this very board in support of Nescio's suggestion to ban me. I think that both User:Chaaaz and Nomen Nescio should be banned.--Dr who1975 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Chaaaz is a sock of someone, don't care who. As for you and Nescio, I suggest you try dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no need for dispute resolution. This user went on a massive editrun on several pages (see his contibution from 1.30-2.00h today), including moving them. Without sufficient discussion to undertake such behaviour I and another user, who also warned him to stop, merely reverted him. He is welcome to the relevant talk pages and propose his suggested moves. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and Personal Attacks by user 80.193.169.137

The above user has both vandalised articles and directed personal attacks at the user User:80.192.242.187 (Signs posts as 'JemmyH') consistently. I am posting on here on behalf of said 'JemmyH' due to his unregistered status. The user 80.193.169.137 has also, in the past, posted on User:Jhamez84 talk page where a further personal attack was aimed at User:Jhamez84 . The full catalogue of 80.193.169.137 contributions can be found here[[76]]. Examples of vandalism can be seen here [[77]], here[[78]] and here[[79]]. The personal attack on User:Jhamez84 can be found here[[80]]. Thank you.Man2 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

PaxEquilibrium

This user is constatnly rude, abusive and now he accuses me of being a sockpuppet of someone else. Though there is no connection between me and this person he makes the offical accustion here [81] he posted my account and connects it with several anon's and one previously banned user to which I can not be connected in any way. This is nothing but fishing. I actually wouldn't complain since perhaps I would think he made a mistake, and so I would tolerate it, unless I was accused before that by another user Paulcicero here [82] which was supported by the same user PaxEquilibrium and another user (who is often revert-warring) Nikola Smolenski. This accusation was proven false. Then comes in PaxEquilibrium at User talk:Tariqabjotu and alleges I am some User:Afrika paprika person who was banned long before I even came and decided to register, alleging my edits are similar to his for which there is absolutly no proof and is definately not true. The funny thing is that he also points as his evidence how a certain member User:GreaterCroatia referred to me as this AfrikaPaprika person which is very strange moment for him to come in and call me that just as another person has made an accusation of me being this person?! This all started with the discussion on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich and since then all these people I mentioned have been following me around and making false allegations against me. I demand something to be done so that these people finally leave me alone. Tar-Elenion 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see [83], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [84] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Essjay RFC

David Gerard, who obviously has strong concerns for Essjay's well being, deleted the RFC and it's talk page, on the grounds it wasn't "certified". Though I understand the motivation behind this, it strikes me as a very bad idea to appeal to "process" as a way to sweep such issues under the rug just as the New York Times [85] and others are discussing them. Dragons flight 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my request to David to undelete the page. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a current event being discussed in both printed and electronic media. It should not have been deleted while people were still discussing the events of the past 36 hours. Munta 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is that way, but this is obviously a valid deletion as there wasn't a single certifier. Without the two-certifier requirement RFC would be a massive troll magnet, and it must be respected. Is there anything that hasn't been said or still needs to be done? Unlikely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you really feel a deletion review would be helpful at this time, it would be to debating cencorship. Deleting this page so quickly is merely going to be kerosene on dying flames. Giano

At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• God just look at the comments there already. Some people in authority on this encyclopedia need saving from themselves. If D Gerard was intending to help Essjay, then he has gone avery strange way about it. Giano 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was put on RfC by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd think the best action would have been to review that MfD close, not to overturn it by a speedy deletion. GRBerry 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Joques2theFuture

Seems inappropriate, since he states on it that he hates Edgar181. At a minimum, probably worth watching in case of future inappropriate action. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Primetime sock?

I blocked The Kingdom of Hate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this, but is it sincere or a weird joke? Chick Bowen 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? --138.38.32.84 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism from this IP

205.247.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP has never made a single constructive edit. It has been blocked in the past for vandalism and the talk page is a mess of warnings. More vandalism today at Chicago Theatre. Recent edits seem to indicate that the person is gaming the system by using this IP to vandalize once a month (probably using others as well). Maybe it's an open proxy? Anyway, I think this IP should be indef blocked as whoever is using it is obviously only out to make trouble. TheQuandry 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place would be WP:AIV. Blocked again this time. However, we never block indef IP addresses. We just extend their blocks anytime they return vandalizing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism threat

At this AFD, User:512theking says if we delete his brother's page he'll go back to vandalizing just like I did in the good old days. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was said months ago and was indef blocked. What's new about that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit was made days ago...not months ago. --Onorem 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Onorem. I see. Well, i've just blocked the IP for a week as a sock of banned user 512theking. There's nothing more we can do at this stage i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DvDknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalizing User:Chacor

This account probably needs indefinite blocking as a compromised account per the user's comments after vandalizing User:Chacor and User talk:Chacor. Please note that vandalism warnings have been removed from his talk page. (→Netscott) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Irishguy for 24h. Let's see what their attitude would be after coming back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) using profanity in my userpage

Resolved

This user has used the words Fuck you on my user page, this user has violated many other wikipedia policies in the past and this is not the first time he has been foul mouthed to fellow editors. complete list of violations of policies can be seen at User:Netmonger/RfC, this is a previous Request for comment which was failed because the certifying editors signed in the wrong place, after the deletion of the Rfc, the affected editors collectively decided not to pursue the case any further, assuming the user will not resort to such methods again. But this hasn't been the case. I hope the administrators will take prompt action in this regard. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DiamondVoice (talk · contribs)

Legal threats in his talk page and in an AfD page. Has already been blocked once, and has a real issue with the process regarding the nomination of his article for deletion. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like DiamondVoice isn't going to take anything from anyone. The legal threats alone warrant an indef block. --Edokter (Talk) 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I filed a check user request - I think he's evading the 24-hour block with the account TabloidPsyco (talk · contribs). RJASE1 ^Talk 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards

Reposted because southphilly moved it up. I assume to escape administrator attention.

Thread retitled from "WP:OWN and a wikiproject about to get nasty".

I've been watching the debate here to see if it is suitable for the project to have a co-ordinator (who if you look at the history seems to be have just appointed himself after minimum consultancy and many people saying the post was unrequired). As a wikipedian of good standing, I wished to comment about the matter. However it seems that I don't have the right to do so according to a sole editor (not the same person as the co-ordinator). My position on this is very clear, all wikiprojects by their very nature should be inclusive - any attempt to say that wikipedians of good standing cannot imput into their development of a project that affects the community should be stamped on and stamped on hard. Projects do not exist outside of the regular norms of the community and should not be allowed to try and enforce guidelines that are not in line with the rest of the community.

I can see that this is about to get nasty and see the good ship HMS revertwar appearing on the horizon, can an admin pop across and have a look. --Fredrick day 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen more and more cases of Wikprojects trying to OWN articles. This needs to be addressed and stopped. Corvus cornix 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't about a WP trying to own an article, it's about a user (allegedly) trying to own a WP. I do agree with your point, but it's not entirely relevant here :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This has moved on - the WP:OWN issues are still there and the same editor has now decided that only certain wikipedians areenfranchised. This is complete bollocks, wikiprojects do not get to opt out of community input. --Fredrick day 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. Southphilly, realising that everyone else is in favour of scrapping a coordinator and my cleanup edits to the page, has taken to simply reverting the page without edit summaries (previously he kept insisting I needed to hold a vote on every change I wanted to make). I encourage anyone reading this to read the talkpage and notice my reaching of consensus of both issues with a variety of editors to that page: Southphilly instead accused me of vandalism, and has repeatedly reverted me, even as everyone else was expressing support for what I had done. Until Evrik took his wikibreak, he was also doing the same thing, and has also blatently canvassed people against me and other editors. I am finding this very wearing, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator could please take a good look at this, as not only I, but three other editors have expressed their concerns that evrik and Southphilly are trying to own the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards

Action needs to be taken on this. See here for background. Evrik has now returned and he and southphilly are tagteaming each other in reverting against consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 has tried to hijack the WikiProject and is trying to force through the outcome she wants. She is being disruptive and is LYING. She is the one who is being harmful. --South Philly 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The page needs to be protected. --South Philly 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm lying? Who is accusing editors of vandalism for reverting the page to the version agreed by all editors except you? Really, if anyone thinks I'm lying, go read the talkpage, see all the editors lining up to disprove Southphilly's assertion. Look through the history, note the point at which southphilly realised that if he called for a vote he would lose it and took to reverting without explanation, or accusing editors of vandalism. Who's lying? It sure ain't me, it ain't Fredrick, it isn't Kathryn, or thuglas, or Michael, or WJBscribe, or any other editor who has supported my edits. Note that editing the page at any way Southphilly doesn't like is "hijacking", even though everyone else supports - WP:OWN anyone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What you mean at the right version? the one where you try and exclude most wikipedians from having a say? --Fredrick day 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• People are welcome to comment, but otherwise its open to vote stacking. --South Philly 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

why? it's a straight forward WP:OWN - the actual co-ordinator bit is just the backdrop - the fundemental issue is an editor trying to remove/degrade the comments of others. --Fredrick day 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. It's a project for putting little decorations on other people's userpages -- I can only assume the purpose of this is to increase general morale and 'wikilove' -- and you're quibbling about who will be in charge? Give each other some awards, forget your concern for your own titles, eliminate the various levels of membership, and then get to the business of increasing wikilove. If you find this an important goal, pursue it; it certainly does not require a coordinator. Internal bickering wastes the community's time and distracts from your project's purpose. — Dan | talk 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Go tell that to southphilly and evrik. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I would remove the levels of membership, as everyone agrees with you - except southphilly and evrik, who keep putting it back against consensus, along with teh coordinator stuff and attenpts to restrict voting to members. Really, I think it's stupid too, but that isn't stopping them crying vandal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in who is in charge or the project - I only became involved because I queried the WP:OWN practices on the page. --Fredrick day 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kirill below)Can I please ask an administrator to actually review the talkpage in question. Saying " This is stupid, just remove the membership" is all very well, but one may notice that there is a bloody-minded determination on the part of southphilly and evrik to prevent me from doing just that. If I revert one more time to the consensus version (read the page and one will find I am right) I will be breaking 3RR, and I'm fed up with southphilly just going "no, it's vandalism", even when I point out that three other people at least agree with me against southphilly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Far be it from me to criticize the idea of coordinators in general (although, honestly, why a twenty-member project that doesn't appear to actually do anything needs one, I don't know), but the behavior here is quite unseemly. WikiProjects should not try to fight the community at large; if people are concerned enough about your behavior to actively complain, it's a pretty good sign that you're doing something wrong. Trying to silence such criticism, or to insist that non-members (a silly distinction, in any case) have no voice, is utterly inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a note requesting a mediation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 objected to my role with the Barnstars. She acted boldly and removed me. A poll was put up by South Philly, Dev920 modified the poll. The whole things has gone back and forth. I want to participate, but I'm not sure what my role here is. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to do about this edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The original discussion, in which I had no part, made it utterly clear that the role of a coordinator was a opposed, and furthermore, when southphilly put evrik forward as a candidate, every subsequent editor opposed. Evrik appointed himself coordinator anyway. That wasn't being bold, that was upholding consensus. However, after an edit war, southphilly tried to get around my quite reasonable assertion that the coordinator section main page beared absolutely no relation to the discussion it was based on by holding yet another poll. My change of the poll was also to reflect objections that the poll was closed to non-members, even though it affects everyone who ever receives an award. If Evrik wants to participate, he can contribute to discussions like every other normal member instead of reverting everything he doesn't like. I, and everyone else, have no objection to that, what we object to are his attempts to rule the project. (accusing me of "hijacking" for the crime of actually editing? Please.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not exactly true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument. --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm certainly not seeing any facts from you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Evrik was nominated, and he accepted. He was doing the job anyway and everyone on the wikiproject was fine with it. Dev920 didnt like the way he was running things so she joined the wikiproject and removed him as coordinator without asking anyone. I can site the relevant links if you want me to ... is that proof enough? --South Philly 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links, relevant links, now, where is that most relevant link? Oh yeah, the original discussion about having a coordinator. Now, who was it who nominated evrik? Oh yeah, you. And who didn't want him? Oh yeah, everyone else. Now, unless you want to cite some magical link where some secret poll was held that confirmed that yes, we needed a coordinator, and yes, thet coordinator should be evrik, there's nothing much more to cite than that. The current poll is currently 8-1(you) against evrik remaining coordinator. But if you have other "proof", please, post it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Southphilly has reverted here and here against consensus, now not only that of the project, but also of the consensus here. Has he broken 3RR?

Looking back over this discussion, I'm seeing me posting links of all over the place and encouraging everyone to read the page. Evrik and southphilly, however, keep accusing me of lying, of telling half-truths, and saying that they have proof of this. Yet it never seems to show up. I wonder why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

South Philly has taken it upon himself to repeatedly remove votes from the open poll to the "comments" section.[86],[87],[88]. I find this behavior most unacceptable, and disruptive.Proabivouac 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

82.153.51.122 / Peniel Pentacostal Church

Could admin attention be applied to 82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This user, whose IP traces to "Peniel Church", is making non-constructive edits to Peniel Pentecostal Church, despite warnings and being in breach of WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

• Moved to WP:CN for community input per the new policy. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks on a user talk page

Please see my previous posts. All I'm asking is that the purposeful misspellings of the name be corrected, and the section heading be reverted to what it was originally. I think Curiouscdngeorge just needs to see that other people do not agree with his behavior. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case

Hi. Could someone please talk to Smee and ask him to stop archiving out two-day-old talk page material that may have some bearing on BabyDweezil's case for community ban. He is edit warring over it with me and I would imagine that, if nothing else, you would not archive out material that another editor wants to reamin. That seems like basic good manners irrespective of the BabyDweezil issue which makes the warring even odder appearing still. See [89]. Thanks --Justanother 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)