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

Posing as an administrator

EinsteinEdits This user has caused some problems on the spam front, but now EinsteinEdits claims to be an administrator... Quite a step up..thanks LOL Hu12 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the template from his userpage. Naconkantari 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ec In the future, when using templated warnings, it is probably best to put them on the user talk pages instead of on the user page. Jkelly 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Naconkantari much appreciated. Jkelly, seems Philosopher06[1] may have placed it there by accident instead of the talk page, I did not want to revert out the boxes, so i did a warning revert by hand. Hu12 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just checked this person's talk page and I noticed he has moved his talk page to User talk:EinsteinEdits nonsense and removed some warnings from his talk page. I restored these warnings and warned him not to do it again. When I explained to him that removing warnings is considered vandalism, he left this uncivil comment on the page. Seems like someone who doesn't understand the problems of what he's been doing so far. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He posted uncivil comments on my talk page as well. keep an eye on this one. Hides under different ip's, heres one [2] Hu12 02:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited as IP at times, there could be a very good reason. I don't log in at all from work unless I have to, as I'd rather not have my coworkers get access to my enwiki account on accident. At home, I've edited and clicked save, to find out that I've been logged out somehow. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems the problems with EinsteinEdits, who also posts as 64.12.116.203 have escilated regarding the blog and spam links on Tickle Me Elmo. This has brought more abusive comments on my talk page, the comments under "new complaint" by 64.12.116.8 must be friend of EinsteinEdits and has posted threats. not sure the policy on this, but some assistance would be appreciated. Hu12 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• After some digging looks EinsteinEdits is here to promote sites after all, here's his info. he posts as MountainLife at digitalpoint.com, and has recently decided to sell his site, quote: "Would like to field some offers for these, TMX-ELMO.NET, TMX-ELMO.ORG,TMXELMO.ORG, I think it's a pretty potent package". The first noticeable spamming was www.tmx-elmo.org, was Created On:19-Sep-2006, and does not appear in the search engines. and has been added and re-added Eleven times ([3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]) This is an alarming amount of spam, whats disterbing is his other sites are in MountainLife's signature, and have been spammed on wiki also examples: www.cocaine-drink.com ( [14] under IP 205.188.116.133, [15] under IP 76.182.42.121,[16], [17], [18], [19]), www.dieselsmoke.com ([20], [21] under IP 64.12.117.10 and [22]. www.nascarspace.com ([23], [24] under IP 205.188.117.5 and here [25] under IP 76.182.42.121 and www.nitrousdirect.com ( [26],[27]). Thanks for your attention in this matter Hu12 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have zero affiliation with any such sites. I am here to try to help and your nazi type approach has made it virtually unbearable. I copied some user icons to spruce up my user page and made the mistake of copying a user admin icon. I apologize no where did I claim to be an admin? I asure you I am here to help and clean spoam, and add valuable links that I come across on a daily basis. I'm not sure why you think I am someone else or own sites but I do not. I'd appreciate if you laid off I'm trying to be apart of the wikipedia experience and your constant abuse and torment is making it very unpleasant to try and contribute--Edited By a Professor of Life 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see you removed your links from your signature since i posted this MountainLife. nice strawman tactic. Hu12 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Hu12 was referring to this edit where you added {{user admin}} to your userpage, which states "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia." Now, as part of assuming good faith I'll just assume you're an admin elsewhere and put it on your userpage by accident, but you may want to read the Wikipedia policy on external links before adding any more of those valuable links you mention, please. We thank you in advance for following the policies and guidelines in place at Wikipedia!

Oh, instead of {{user admin}} you might want to use {{User System Administrator}} or whichever appropriate other occupational userbox applies. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies i copied a list of neat looking user icons and that was included. Again i'm sorry what is the issue that you can not understand that it was removed, not put back, and apologized for. I had no idea how user icons worked or userpages i thought it was your own place to list stuff. Again sorry. As for other comments I have zero clue who that person is, don't see any links, don't know what you mean by strawman but you guys are really going overboard I was simply contributing, and have no affiliations other than being a member on one of the message forums I found useful. --Edited By a Professor of Life 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the admin tag confusion clear. My point after was that when www.tmx-elmo.org was removed, because it had ads, the ads disappeared. After mentioning that the same group of links you have inserted and focused on here at wiki (www.nitrousdirect.com, www.nascarspace.com, www.dieselsmoke.com , www.cocaine-drink.com ) were curiously in a "signature" on another forum, showing their relationship to you, they too disappear after its mentioned. then my user page gets vandalized excessively, along with all but my contribs involving you. An amazing string of coincidences. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of a position. Any way best of luck in your endeavors. Hu12 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article on Jayalalitha

I've observed frequently few users like idleguy launches lot of personal attacks against her. She is the one of the political leader of India. They write about her personal life and quote references from gossips appeared in various magazines. They also mentions defamatory languages like that she is the concubine, she has child(though she is spinster)etc etc which are not relevant for the article concerning political leader. Could you please something to prevent such vandalism. Lravikumar 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism. Some of the references you blanked are from academic journals, Asia Week magazine, and several other sources. While unsourced material may be removed per WP:BLP, if there is any info from a reliable source, I do not see any problem. --Ragib 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to reply to this complaint and do not edit that section (Secret Personal life) until that. NCurse _work 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• It appears Lravikumar has mistaken me for someone else who might have indulged in personal attacks in the past on such articles. I saw that a certain user named Jjayalalitha had blanked the section in this edit and a couple of edits later I reinstated it and added more sources for the same. I reworded "conspiracy theories" which has an entirely different meaning to a temporary heading of "Secret personal life". I also provided credible sources for the "mistress" issue and can continue to point to other edits like this in the past where I've blanked baseless allegations whenever this article does catch my eye. I've even replied in the talk page previously here stressing that "Her so called marriage with Shoban Babu unless backed by a proper cite will have to go soon" and retagged the 2nd para talking about her alleged wedding as [citation needed]. I have given solid sources for the "concubine" issue and I can provide tons more if needed. (btw concubine isn't the correct term and was planning to change that until I was notified not to change for the time being) There has been no violation of any WP policies, especially concerning biographies of living persons. The contentious first para's statements are verifiable instantly, not original research and taken from multiple non-partisan sources. I suspect Lravikumar has not fully read the sources, half of which come from reputable Indian publications like for instance The Economic Times or DCRC, a Delhi University research center among other esteemed publications which cannot be dismissed as mere "gossips". Idleguy 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your view. Any mention of derogatory statements like concubine,mistress etc to be avoided on living persons. You can get umpteen sources regarding personal life of notable public figures.For example,I can find 1000 websites which makes derogatory statements about Bill Gates or George Bush.(There is a website which even says Bill Gate is dead.Will you believe it?).If some website says person "xxx" is gay does not give authority for wikipedians to edit concerned person article saying that he is a gay quoting that as a citation.

Any personal allegations regarding illegal relationship,dating,sexual orientation etc on individuals to be considered wrong unless it is accepted by concerned person even if there is 100 gossip websites writing about it.I wish Wikipedia to remain as collection of knowledge not as a collection of gossips. If we allow this to happen then each article on living persons will be flooded with Junk personal attacks. Jayalalitha is a political leader. I don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc.I even wish to develop consensus on modifying Policy on living persons to cite my views without any ambiguity. I can argue that each one of your citation is from unreliable sources. I don't want to indulge in edit war.I hope you will agree with my points and remove concerned section.--Lravikumar 18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have only blanked the page after a consensus was reached. More over, there is nothing called as Gossip Magazine. It is Magazine. And I don't agree with you calling all the sources as Gossip Magazines. You should note that the para is based on well cited sources, which no one in Tamil Nadu can disagree.

Point two. I disagree with your view that don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc Even that has to be cited and there should be more sources for that.

Remember that it is clearly given (in another article) that another Tamil Nadu CM has two wives.

If people go on blanking all that is not good about their favourite leaders, then we will have no articles in Wikipedia at all.

There is no policy in Wikipedia which says you cannot write about affairs. (Note that Sexual Orientation is different from affairs). See Princess Diana and Bill Clinton for example. Of course, you cannot write completely baseless affairs. But the para is question is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be maintained as it is well cited.  Doctor Bruno  19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr.Bruno/Idleguy. 1) As suggested in my Talk page, I will edit only unsourced contents of the page till we reach consensus on controversial sourced edit. 2) Regarding your comments on sourced edit. a) I did not mean she can be attacked politically without citations. b) Having two wives is not derogatory term.(which is also accepted by biographer) Alleging affair is derogatory term especially when it is not accepted by biographer. c) Both Bill Clinton & Diana has accepted their extra marital affairs. So it can be mentioned. But same is not the case with Jayalalitha. d) I edited many pages of Movie actresses and other celebrities when personal attacks are launched against them. You can see from my contributions. Jayalalitha is not my favourite leader as indicated(I hope you also did not mean that Jayalalitha is my favourite leader and indicated in generic sense.I know you will talk only issue and not launch personal attack) e) Personal attacks on personal life are common against prominent public figures. They cannot see all news articles and refuse them. So unless otherwise accepted by biographer,we should not consider it as a source.(For example if you search internet, there may be 1000's of personal attacks against George Bush personal life. Do you think it gives right for any wikipedian to add such material in criticism or personal life section of George Bush). Jayalalitha herself launched personal attacks by using filthy languages against people like sonia gandhi,vajpayee,Janaki ramachandran,Advani etc etc without giving any proof. Does it give right for wikipedians to add such personal allegations in respective biographies. f) I have quoted relevant wikipedia policies on living persons in concerned article's talk page about why it needs to be removed.Pl clarify me if you feel that my understanding of policies are wrong. Thanks --Lravikumar 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

first i think u r in the wrong place. See above "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." and your issue is about the content in which case again this isn't the right place.

Second, I urge you to go through WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, the three official policy critieria which has to be followed in any article edit, especially biographical articles. All have been followed in so far as the offending 1st para is concerned. That is all that matters, really. I suggest you avoid unnecessarily complicating things. Thanks. Idleguy 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I hv come to right page. I came to this page to inform to administrators about editing incident.I read and quoted from above policies. You did not answer my question directly. --Lravikumar 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus among those that chose to respond on this seems to be that it is well cited and there is no issue. I have made some changes and added another journal and Shashi Tharoor's article as source. Tx Idleguy 11:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

If the requests at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JarlaxleArtemis are confirmed, please block the IPs and/or IP ranges which banned user JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is using to create his throwaway vandal accounts. He's recently been causing problems on User:Psychonaut and its various subpages. —Psychonaut 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This version of JA's page lists his numerous other-language user pages. I chose the one in French. There's no sign on it or its talk page that he's blocked. As I'm not an admin of fr:WP I can't check if he actually is blocked. If there's a simple way to protect other-language WPs from this person (and I really don't know), I'd recommend it. -- Hoary 08:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser requests have just been confirmed. If it's possible to block the IPs used by JarlaxleArtemis to perpetrate this vandalism and to evade his blocks, then please do so. —Psychonaut 16:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:4.168.180.251 needs blocking; was established by checkuser and by user's own admission that it was being used to operate User:Kreplinnnn, an account created in violation of a community ban. —Psychonaut 14:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a dial-up ISP number and can't be blocked for more than 24 hours normally. If Jarlaxle is using dial-up to contact wikipedia he will probably hae a different IP address every time he connects to the internet. Thatcher131 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. If someone could supply me with a list of recent IPs, I will contact the respective ISPs to report the abuse. (In addition to 4.168.180.251, he's been using addresses in the 71.107.137.201/16 range, which is Los Angeles-area Verizon DSL; there may be more.) —Psychonaut 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The only people who can provide that information are CheckUsers. You would have to try WP:RFCU or contact one of the others individually. Thatcher131 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Highperformanceauto

Highperformanceauto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be a single purpose account with the intent to whitewash diploma mill Saint Regis University and defame physicist and anti-diploma mill activist George Gollin (who was called something bad, which I won't repeat, here and whose bio was prodded by the user). Tupsharru 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would suggest giving them a warning first.--Andeh 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, did you actually read the attack against Gollin? This user is obviously no confused newbie; s/he knowns what WP:PROD is and how to use {{fact}} tags. People writing stuff like that shouldn't be warned, they should just be told to go to hell. Tupsharru 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The same person seems to be editing as 75.31.70.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been warned by somebody else. It also appears that Gollin himself has now registered and edited as G-gollin (talk · contribs). Tupsharru 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some attention from an experienced conflict resolver would be welcome here. Apart from the edit warring on both articles, it seems conflict external to Wikipedia has entered to a sufficient extent that all recent versions of both articles contain sufficient detritus to be unencyclopaedic in tone. Martinp 11:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I (George Gollin) did register as G-gollin (talk · contribs). Thanks for your attention to this. Please feel free to contact me via email or phone at the University of Illinois if more information (or recent history) would be helpful to you-- G-gollin 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Subtle spamming

I just noticed something that seems a little too big for me to deal with. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=free-game-downloads.mosw.com&limit=500&offset=0 shows links to a particular game download site in many articles, 50 of them so far. The curious thing, having done a small random check, is that they have been added recently, each time by a different anon IP with no other contributions. Rather than just wade in and delete, I wonder if this merits deeper investigation. Notinasnaid 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. They almost have to be proxies, don't you think? They're all over the world. Thatcher131 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This looks like a job for the spam blacklist. And if those links actually do lead to somewhere where the games in question can be downloaded, that's bad news too, as most of them aren't in the public domain and still covered by copyright. Providing links to download spots for copyrighted games is shaky legal territory indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's now 56. I wonder if it is actually a series of zombies, which would be an alarming prospect for the future. Should anyone want to investigate, cleaning up will make it very hard to track back so here is a list of the current 56 articles: Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow King's Quest IV: The Perils of Rosella King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder! Theme Park (computer game) 1943: The Battle of Midway 1942 (arcade game) True Love (game) The Neverhood Return to Zork Mixed-Up Mother Goose Below the Root Sanitarium (videogame) 5 Days a Stranger 7 Days a Skeptic Les Misérables Wing Commander (computer game) 3-Demon Prince of Persia AAARGH! Abuse (computer game) Action Fighter ActRaiser Captain Comic The Oregon Trail (computer game) Mario Teaches Typing The Incredible Machine 3 in Three 7 Colors 3D Lemmings Lands of Lore Pool of Radiance Abandoned Places Advanced Xoru SimEarth Wing Commander: Privateer Red Baron (game) Chuck Yeager's Air Combat 4x4 Off-Road Racing A.G.E. A-10 Tank Killer A320 Airbus Abrams Battle Tank Ace of Aces (computer game) Championship Manager 2 Ultimate Soccer Manager ABC Wide World Of Sports Boxing Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Computing/2006 August 20 Jones in the Fast Lane Transport Tycoon Star Trek: Starfleet Command III Constructor (video game) Panzer General 3D Construction Kit 3D Construction Kit II Adventure Construction Set Notinasnaid 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I remember abandonware are titles that you legally can download for a certain period of time. While the patter is disturbing if this is true these links are actually helpful, however if its not true please inform me and I will help cleanup. --NuclearZer0 16:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  I found my own answer its illegal, I will start removing the links starting from the bottom. --NuclearZer0 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Got to Ace of Aces and got tired, if someone can cleanup some more its appreciated. --NuclearZer0 17:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• All done.  :) -- Merope ^Talk 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some were missed, and more continue to be added (see the link in my first post). I've done a few more, but when will it end? The abandonware problem seems widespread: Ascendancy had three different links. Notinasnaid 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Category:Abandonware websites is interesting... Notinasnaid 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I see someone is hard at work keeping up, and I've added a request for blocking. Here is something that might be interesting: the editor or program is currently working through their PC games alphabetically, and at the time of writing reached Ecco the Dolphin. It might be possible to anticipate a couple of articles ahead and (a) try rearranging the page to see if a robot can be tricked (just to see if it's a robot or a human; all edits I've seen have been at the end of the last section, but before the trailing stuff); (b) stick a warning in, though someone determined enough to use a different IP for each edit isn't likely to heed a warning. I also speculate that the web site might be creating zombies as people sign up (ironically, the "free" software requires a subscription). Notinasnaid 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to keep up, but I see you're right about the alphabetical thing. If they are only into the E's, this is going to be a long night... Satori Son 20:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This needs to go on the meta:spam blacklist. Any meta admins around? >Radiant< 08:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like Notinasnaid took care of it over there. Thanks, Satori Son 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I must be going mad

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Stating the obvious
If I'm wrong here can someone please tell me where and why, because I can't see it myself. -- Steel 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a situation requiring administrator intervention. --InShaneee 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Same here. This is more suited for the Mediation Cabal. Shadow1 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohnoes! More work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

user: Chadbryant

• Chadbryant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 65.31.99.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Twentyboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Type F. I have a suspicion that after being blocked for a week for repeated violation of 3RR, this user continued editing under the name twentyboy. My reasoning:

• IP 65.31.99.71's first edit to WP was to make a small stylistic change to one of Chad's talk page edits, and he started editing after Chad was blocked.
• Twentyboy started editing just after Chad was blocked, and started off by posting a message on the talk page of Chad's favourite article, the "Randy Orton" talk.
• After being warned by me for posting inappropriate content on article talk pages, Twentyboy started threatening me at User_talk:Yandman#Twentyboy, but forgot to log in for his last message, signed IP 65.31.99.71 .

I was told that this wasn't worthy of a checkuser, because 3RR blocks are not "community based blocks". This means I can't really prove they're the same, but the evidence seems pretty overwhelming. Thanks. yandman 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For this, I would suggest you to report this on the Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, so some admin will take a look on this. Daniel5127 (Talk) 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they refused it, for the reason I stated. Does anyone have a clue as to what to do? yandman 07:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell them 'Type E', and provide links to the 3RR violation. They helpfully didn't point this out. Morwen - Talk 10:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to the knights to tell you what sort of shrubbery ;-) Guy 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Type E asks for 4 diffs showing 3RR violations by the puppets. He didn't break 3RR with sockpuppets, though. He broke it with his original account, and then made another one to continue editing despite the ban, so I don't think E is the right type either. It'll just get refused with the rather laconic "declined" tag. yandman 11:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection of Lidle Page

People are using the entry of Cory Lidle as a personal blog. Editing the page with each bit of "breaking news" and using present tense speech such as "ESPN is now claiming that..." or "The mayor of New York City is now saying...". Can this page be blocked from any further editing until the news calms down please?--Kester Teague 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to keep up-to-date. This is posted at the wrong place anyway. (see WP:RFPP) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend against full protection for more than 5 minutes as this is a major current event. Naconkantari 22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand it's a current event. But an encyclopedia is not a blog. I've never seen an encyclopedia that uses the present tense or has things like "ESPN is reporting..." and "The mayor is on TV now claiming...". Those types of things are for the article's discussion page not the actual article itself.--Kester Teague 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but generally, that stuff is reverted quickly. General rule of thumb is to keep pages unprotected if they are listed from the main page. There are exceptions in extreme cases (Steve Irwin) but this is not one of those. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicole Sheridan

I found this article tagged with the "autobiography" template. But on the talk page there is no mention or evidence of her herself contributing to this article. What is the deal with this? UCF Cheerleader 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It probably means she is believed to have contributed under a username that is not here real name. Did you read the Discussion page of the article to see if the tag is explained? Johntex\^talk 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my post carefully? It would behoove you to do that. Thanx UCF Cheerleader 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Either too much caffeine or too little. I've removed the tag since no justification for it was given. Johntex\^talk 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

24.42.163.237/Picassoo has been adding his/her website (ottomanonline.net) to various Ottoman-related pages for weeks now. I'm not sure if this is a serious enough of a matter for the website to be added to the spam blacklist, but I've gotten tired of reverting, especially because of the fact that this user switches between editing anonymously and with the Picassoo account, which makes it more difficult to warn him/her. Any suggestions as to what I should do? —Khoikhoi 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If either of them edits again re-inserting the link, I'll block both of them the same length. Grandmasterka 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, didn't take long. Blocked them both for a week (the IP had been blocked twice before for the same thing.) Grandmasterka 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, that saves me a lot of time. —Khoikhoi 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he/she has returned as 83.242.153.70 (talk · contribs)... Incidentally, it appears to be an open proxy. —Khoikhoi 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And again as 72.65.76.183 (talk · contribs), also an open proxy. [28] —Khoikhoi 06:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked. I don't know how much longer I'll be around here tonight, I hope someone from the Eastern hemisphere can help you if this keeps up. Grandmasterka 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New user

i just got onto my wikipedia and i tried to create a new article but as soon as i had done so i found my self with a warning over vandalism.The next day i turned on my p.c i logged on and found that i had been given a final warning during the night,the warning stated that i had vandalised agian and is threatining to block me! -- posted on Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block by WeeAaron (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log).

It appears that this user was blocked for personal attacks, and all of his contributions to date are such (including his user page which I recently blanked) as well two articles that were speedied (Duke Street Firm and Ryan mcgowan). Ryūlóng 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at articles relating to Turkey and Greece

The same users that have been editwarring at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are now engaging in an editmoverevertwar at other articles relating to Turkey and Greece. One example is Turkish Republic of Western Thrace and Republic of Gumuljina. My involvement at TRNC has been called into question, so I think it's better if another admin has a look at this conflict. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 10:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's getting quieter. Some users were upset because a history merger was done that was poorly understood. I'll keep an eye on it. (not an admin though). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's not just that article, with that page merger, with that particular group of users. The edit wars revolve around more articles and involve more users. This is a chronic dispute, of which the article on TRWT/RoG is simply another expression. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, we had a period of relative peacefulness about Greek-Turkish topics during the summer, but somehow it's been flaring up again lately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's right. We'll try to build a consensus on the talk page of Fut.Perf.. Fut.Perf. is trying to compromise the disputed issues in a very reasonable way. We, the wikipedians, will solve the issue. Cheers! E104421 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahihihoho

I've just indef-blocked Hahahihihoho (talk · contribs) for this, preceded by 3RR warning and a promise he will keep on doing it, just after he returned from a 1-month block. If this is not "exhausting community patience", I don't know what it is. Duja 12:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a defense but your dif shows him promising to follow 3RR not promising to break it. --NuclearZer0 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. He has promised three reverts a day: "Okey, I will not edit in the next hours. But I will edit 3 times each day, you can be sure!" That would constitute disruptive behaviour and a violation of WP:POINT. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't block him for 3RR, but decided to just warn him. I blocked him for the reply. The point raised by Aecis was just an additional factor. Duja 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block and I'm pretty sure other admins who previously delt with User:Hahahihihoho (like User:Bishonen) will too. --Dijxtra 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to decline this latest unblock request -- clearly, the user has a history of disruptive behavior. Immediately returning to that same behavior, with phrases like "You obviosly cant read and understand english." [29] and "Look, your dirty Yugoslavi doesnt exist anymore!!!" [30], doesn't seem like a good indicator to me. Instead of acting to solve a dispute, their efforts were directed towards continuing the problem and making it worse. Luna Santin 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I fully support the indef block. Joelito (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahahihihoho is a nationalist POV-pusher. He's also a young user. There's something disarming about him, and he has in fact been extended vast amounts of patience and special newbie-consideration, especially by kindly non-admin users, in the hope that the penny would eventually drop. My one-month block was a last-ditch effort, where I explained to him that if he hadn't figured out the difference between a blog and an encyclopedia when he returned, he'd be blocked indefinitely. I guess he still hasn't. Support the indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

I support the indef block. There's only so much disruption the community needs to tolerate. FeloniousMonk 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request of deletion of revission of article

A vandal made this edit, and then reverted it. The revision should I belive be deleted. [31] _→AzaToth 12:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The schol IP in question has been warned 4 times, so should be blocked anyway. --Alex (Talk) 12:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, Aza. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

vindictive vandalism and threats by user

I was recently visited and vandalized by user:aurention aka user:akusudo with oddball accusations, vague threats, and demands to remove all the user's "personal information" from their archives. I rv'd the comments, but here is the link : [old usertalk page] User:bucketsofg and user:Wildthing61476 have also been vandalized along the same lines. This whole thing stems back to his hurt feelings about deletion of a vanity page for a little-known and non-notable art project of his. Various users tried to work with him to a compromise solution but to no avail. He has not shown himself particularly understanding of what Wikipediais about or how it operates. I am starting to resent his periodic vandalistic lashing-out, which is boring and tiresome to deal with, and frankly, really really old news at this point. If admins could put their heads together or have a serious talk with him, it would be appreciated. Richardjames444 13:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I remember this guy. I don't know - something about a guy submitting an article *about* himself, and then when it's removed, wanting to excise all traces of the fact that he did so... seems disingenuous. Almost WP:POINT-ish. Danny Lilithborne 21:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I just received the following email from this user:

Date: Fri 13 Oct 13:01:02 EDT 2006

From: ion aurent" <.com> Add To Address Book To: <RJAMES@UDel.Edu>

Stop whining, get the fuck out of my life, my business and my art! I don't have time for your shit, your games and your harrassment. I have asked you nicely several time to stop fucking with me, and now it is to the point of really pissing me off.

I have repeatedly asked this guy to stop referring to my name, project name in any regard, and have yet again edited his comments that refer specifically to me. I have the right create on my user page in a form of computer/new media art, to comment in whatever language or form I feel free to express in. I have done nothing to the above but request that he not mention my personal info. in his posts, but he insists on continuing this bullshit. I am not editing anonymously as there is no secret as to who I am. Yes, I attempted to expunge my earlier username and still prefer to, but this fucker keeps harassing me and insists on mentioning my name, project and username , all of which refer to personal and private info., and ultimately have turned to slander and libel, after repeated requests for him to stop. My use of language is free speech, I am an atheist, though spiritual I think god is the santa of adults, I don't think fuck is a bad word, nor nigger or white nigger dependent upon use ( see chris rock or george carlin) I was a white nigger for the 6 years that I traveled and painted my way across asia, and it was good. I don't give a shit what a conservative little twat thinks of me or my work, my use or words, symbols and expressions. I have no issue over a few teenagers blacklisting one of my works of art from wikipedia. I do have an issue with the manner by which it was done, the red-neck good 'ol boy behavior of their klan, the hypocrisy of their actions and continued actions. There is no reason for you to delete my use of combined words and symbols, and no reason not to expunge as requested. btw...on the advice of buckets, see comments, I attempted to drop first username and logged in a new one, but these gays kept referring to and using earlier name...so I am responding to discussions that refer to both until this is resolved. As posted by buckets, this is the principle upon which my requests to expunge and remain anonymouys are supported.

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia.

If you do not ensure that personal information you posted is removed from this site you may be blocked from editing this site. REMEMBER: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you.

The first para. is the money quote, I guess, as to defining where ion is coming from. I imagine that must be in violation of some Wikipedia policy. Richardjames444 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the money quote is that I'm fucking pissed off at the insistence of Richard James continually harrassing me, refusing to stop identifying my personal info. (as with posting my personal email above with website). I have vandalized nothing but to take a letter or two off of my personal name and words that lead to my personal info. in the slanderous and libelous and defaming posts of richard james. I don't give a shit that my project is not listed here. I found the whole process interesting and hilarious, though quite hypocritical. WHo can take the piss out of who here. THe article was about an art project, not me. I don't care that it's not there. It doesn't exist, nor does Bigfoot! His compromise was on day two of the original posting of the project article, a one man band who decides fist down who gets what and when, like a fascist pig. I could have campaigned for votes, but what the fuck...Before final vote and deletion, Richard James posted an article about me without my desire nor consent, and then deleted it in a violent fit of rage when I jokingly said the first article is dead at another's insistence that it should be deleted then at seven days. He's had the same hard-on ever since. As I said, I don't give a shit but that his posts are defaming, slanderous, libelous and outright insidious. His high and mighty accusational tone is what is weird and strange. All I have done in the past two days is to delete letters of my name and project, and the old username that I was attempting to expunge. Why?

"Such posting can cause offence or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches. If you have posted such information, please remove it immediately. Please then follow the link to this page and inform people there that the information was posted (but crucially, do not repost it on that page). An admin or developer can then remove the information from the archives of Wikipedia."

"Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia." How is it vandalism to attempt to remain anonymous?! and to attempt to separate personal and professional reputation from libelous attacks?

User:Embarkedaxis

Can someone please block Embarkedaxis again? He or she has twice removed a large portion of the Muhammad Talk page and material from the Muhammad article itself with no discussion or edit summary. This is exactly why the article is semi-protected right now. It seems that yet another block may be in order, IMHO. --ElKevbo 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. NCurse _work 14:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try reporting that on WP:AIV, next time. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pumpkin

I watch this article for vandalism, but the last few days there's been some strange edit warring over lists of links to pumpkin festivals (which might deserve their own article, but these are just links). See the edit comments on the recent history for details. The IPs involved are AOL (probably the same user), so temporary protection might be the best route. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. NCurse _work 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... the other user in the dispute is a good editor, and I didn't want to see him getting bad-faith accusations for 3rr vios. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User evading ban

88.218.52.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is evading a block on his/her account, Mywayyy (talk · contribs). The account was indef. blocked due to ban evasion and general disruption. See user's contribs, especially this one. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours. NCurse _work 19:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct

User:THB…

Has been repeatedly reverting edits of mine with the obviously inappropriate edit summary "RVV": [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

After I opened this incident, he's switched over to reverting me with no comment (or discussion) at all: [39], [40]

Has refused to engage in a discussion of disputed edits:

• Talk:Telepathy#Recent edits and mediation
• Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal#"citation needed"
• Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal #disputed edit
• [41]

Made a laundry list of false accusations against me: [42] and [43]

And has made personal attacks against me by referring to me as a "vandal" in Talk page comments: [44], [45]

KarlBunker 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement made by Karl Bunker. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

THB is also removing other user's comments from his/her talk page, somewhat against WP:Talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Karl just violated the 3 revert rule himself. I don't see any particular reason to prefer one version of the opening paragraph over another, and I suggest you talk about it, and leave it at one or the other version until some other contributors weigh in. Sterile reversion and reversion without discussion is never a good thing. Thatcher131 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive insertion of unsourced, unencyclopedic material

User:Dr. R.K.Z is persistently adding unsourced, sub-sub-trivial, unencyclopedic material into Power Rangers, Power Rangers: Turbo, and Power Rangers: Zeo. His psuedo-information has been constantly removed, and he keeps edit-warring over it, and including abusive edit summaries [46]. For the record, this user has a long history of disruption: for example, in the past, he has used Talk:Toon Zone as a place to stage personal attacks against the article's subject ([47] being a very good example), and he has a history of using talk pages as if they were message boards to discuss what he thinks of the article's subject, not the writing of the article (again, Talk:Toon Zone is a perfect example). jgp ^T_C 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• He says there's "no such thing as too much trivia". :/ Danny Lilithborne 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:GaryNigel

This users recent contribution Hong Kong Buttholer (including the edit summary F**K N***ERS) is unacceptably offensive. Please block. exolon 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked, and I have to say: You've gotta be freaking kidding me. Why wasn't this guy username blocked a long time ago?! I respect my fellow administrators a lot but this user was unblocked in July 2005 with the summary: "not a sockpuppet, just a member of a trolling group. If they actually cause problems, then block." Well yeah he's a member of a certain trolling group, that doesn't warrant an immediate username block? I'm really sorry, I just can't believe this guy has been around for two years under this username. Clearly not here to do much good. Grandmasterka 21:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at World Wrestling Entertainment roster

Over silly matters concerning names. One user thinks it should be Snitsky, while the other says Gene Snitsky. Also a war over Mr. Kennedy/Ken Kennedy. I didn't count all the edits, but I'm thinking at least one or two of the editors are in violation of 3 Revert Rule. I'm simply fed up with the problem (which has been going on for the past few days, as well as in the past.) RobJ1981 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to fill out a 3RR about it, but I realized how stupid this edit war is. You can request semi-protection of the page if it's really that bad, but there is no acute POV warring or modifications of large amounts of text (it's one word!). If I were you, I'd contact the editors involved and encourage them to discuss the dispute on the article's talkpage (which, coincidentally, hasn't been done yet). If things get out of hand, go for the red tape, otherwise, talk it out first. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page, and told both users about it. We will see if it helps any. A 3RR might need to be filled out about this, they simply shouldn't continue to do it (without making a compromise: which they have yet to do). I somehow don't think it will help much, because there was an issue about this before...and it never got solved. RobJ1981 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now a third user is involved with the war. I've told him about the talk page post, but he simply doesn't seem to listen. If a compromise is going to be made, people need to stop the editing and reverting of it! RobJ1981 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha, gimme a break, I'm trying to come up with a solution to the problem and you're accusing me of not listening. Choose your words a little more carefully. I actually (hopefully) convinced one user to stop revert warring for now. I am writing a proposal on the talk page for anyone who cares. — Moe 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Penetrating Fluid

...has been unblocked after User:Georgewilliamherbert explained to me that the term "penetrating fluid" is often used to refer to penetrating oil. If anyone else feels strongly about the username, feel free to reinstate the block. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Have reblocked following discussion on admin chan. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an early archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Take it to a subpage. El_C 20:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano II blocked

Giano II (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Perhaps he was upset by something he'd read. But this post on the 'evidence page' of an already overheated RfAr is simply unacceptable, no matter the provocation. Experienced wikipedians simply do not behave like this. I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off - although I was tempted to make it a lot longer - if anyone wants to extend it go ahead.--Doc 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely endorse this block. Before anyone complains, look at the diff. Kelly's recent withdrawal is no reason to overtly insult her, especially at a time when its hard enough maintaining any degree of civility. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirded. - brenneman ^{L} 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• With the admonition that if Cyde had not copied the off-wiki attacks from the blog in as evidence, Gianno would not have had reason to comment on them. Some comment as to his behavior there is warrented. - brenneman ^{L} 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 23:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why block? Is that the best method for solving issues on Wikipedia? Did you discuss your concerns with him and ask him to revert? --FloNight 23:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. We need to say 'unacceptable' to that louder than just a note on a page. He's not a newbie that needs WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA patronisingly pointed out to him. He knows what he's doing - and the likely damaging effects the harmony of our community. A three hour block is very restrained, it is just a signal, he may even sleep through it. Yes, I have posted a note on his page. If he indicates any time in the next 3 hours that he's got the message, and sees the unaccptability of the post, then by all means unblock him.--Doc 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's due to the nature of blocking being preventative, not punative. A short duration block is usually intended as a cooloff period. It's pretty much also the strongest signal that the community can give a user that certain demonstrated behavior is unacceptable. The idea is that with this signal and resultant cooloff period, it will prevent disruption through ensuring that there will not be "more of the same" at a later point (whether in an immediate or long/mid-term sense). With this diff, I really don't see a problem with the decision. --Crimsone 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am sitting here with my head in my hands. I thought we had all learned something during the past several weeks. Giano's post to the RfAr evidence page was inflammatory, untimely, and completely unnecessary. The resultant 3-hour block for Giano to "cool down," while well-intentioned, sounds in some ways like an echo or a parody. The arbitration case resulting in large measure from the last round of this, which I feared would wind up as a complete nightmare, seems to have reached some reasonable conclusions (save the ban on John Reid, which I find troubling and may bring before Jimbo). To all concerned, do we really want to start all this again? Newyorkbrad 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought we all had learned something from this too, but as long as Giano is perpetually incivil this is going to keep flaming up. The problem lies with him, not people trying to hold him to the same standards of civility as all of the other editors. --Cyde Weys 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news. Giano has been unblocked -- Drini 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Despite the consensus here, and without any attempt to discuss it with me or here, bishonen has seen fit to unblock. I'm not going to reinstate the block, but given the consensus here, I find here wheel-waring very troubling. I invite others to consider reinstating the block per the consensus here.--Doc 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Unblocked by Bishonen: Blocking the nominal centre of the RFAr for evidence added to the evidence page is not right. He gets to speak freely there. Excuse me? Is policy in abeyance on the evidence page? I'm stunned. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted at User talk:Doc glasgow before seeing this. User:Bishonen has also commented there. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The block seems to me both unmotivated (since Giano's edit was surely not the start of any kind of a rampage, it was one edit, on an evidence page, surely the place of all others where users may speak most freely) and somewhat provocative. There was no warning, either. I've unblocked, with a pretty full comment on Doc's page. I didn't realize it was being discussed here till Drini told me, thanks, Drini. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

And you didn't think to post to my page, before reversing me? You think Giano needed warned that we have a civility and npa policy? Your wheel-waring is unaccpetable. I've replied to your ridiculous justification on my talk page--Doc 23:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Argh... I hadn't noticed the time stamp on the original post showing it was hours ago, and had presumed from the words "cooling off" that is was fresh. That is indeed suboptimal. In light of that I'd have preferred a warning and the chance to redact. But this post was well beyond what is acceptable. - brenneman ^{L} 23:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall we add to proposed principles that Giano/Giano II is exempted from WP:CIVIL? That's the unmistakable impression I'm gaining here, and I don't like it much. Personally, before unblocking, I look to see if it's being discussed. Then I discuss it if it isn't. Then, only then, do I unblock. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So you do support blocking established users without so much as a warning? You should obviously revise blocking policy first. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest (as per the personal attacks userbox on my user page), I never consider that there is either a place for personal attacks, and there are rarely circumstances where they can be excused. Evidence page or not, that's pretty vitriolic. It's all well and good saying that an established editor won't take much notice of a "cooloff" period, but as per my previous comment, what else can the community do to send the signal? All the unblocking has effectively done is to legitimise what can only be described as unacceptable behaviour --Crimsone 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some admins still don't get the idea that a "cool down block" is not a good idea... One could think that after pages and pages of discussions and explanations it would be the case, but looks like it isn't... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And it looks like some well-established editors don't get the idea that persistent incivility is unacceptable. What can be done? If he cannot control himself but blocking isn't appropriate either, what then? Can we just ask him to leave? --Cyde Weys 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, despite my previous admonitions, you and Doc still engage in old good IRC-style incivility. Given the background of the arbitration, Doc's block appears to have been a deliberate povocation. He was aware that the block will not have a cooling effect, rather otherwise, and he defiantly chose to open this can of worms again. I don't see how such admins may be valuable to Wikipedia. I advise everyone more interested in politics than editing to move their activities to IRC (where Tony and Kelly are already profitably employed). Please don't involve Giano and other contributors into your games. You know that they can't respond to you symmetrically. They don't have a block button at their disposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is with editors who think they can say whatever they want. If that's allowed to slide, we might as well abolish the civility policy or anyone trying to enforce it will be accused of having a double standard. Cooling off blocks can work. Blatant incivility, especially on an arbitration page, is never acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You want agreement? I'll agree with Giano's comments about the blog. That's what he commented upon. The blog became germane when it was allowed as evidence, and therefore the blog became subject of review. Giano looked at it (and I shan't) and found it to be foul. He was correct in saying that it wasn't a personal attack, because it was a blog attack. Since that blog had been lodged as "evidence" to attack him, I'm not sure what's so surprising. He felt that a person who would write so toxically was not a person anyone should thank. About that I have no opinion, but I find it disgraceful that an off-wiki attack can be entered into evidence, but no one can say that it's a horrible blog and that it shows a bad personality without being blocked? Why is someone trying to protect the integrity of an off-wiki blog? I have worse things to say on the subject of people who blog about their screen names than that, perhaps, but I'm a "primo don" (correcting the Italian, there). Someone tell me that the blog isn't a private voodoo doll, that it is somehow Wikipedia, that it is, in fact, a Wikipedia editor and not an extranneous artifact. Geogre 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's come round to this concept that keeps cropping up: Giano was blocked for criticizing evidence. Ridiculous. He was blocked for making a vile statement of the sort I thought we all deplored ([48]). Why all the talk of voodoo dolls--this is a straightforward case of incivility and ought to be treated as such. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If anybody has a better suggestion, I'd be more than happy to hear it. As far as I can tell, a cooldown block is about the strongest thing anybody can do with the exception of an indef or long term block, which would be inappropriate in this case. In the mean time though, should wikipedia really be turning an effective blind eye to unacceptable behaviour on the basis of whether a user is established here or not? If the user is established and thus knows the policies, it just makes such behaviour all the more unacceptable. --Crimsone 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: First, undoing a single admin action is not generally considered wheel-warring and to call what Bish did wheel-warring seems inaccurate. That said, while I understand that one would want evidence pages to be closer to allowing free speech than other areas, I have trouble seeing how anything in evidence or workshops could require the need to be uncivil or make personal attacks. Unlike Giano's earlier comments that Tony blocked for, this comment seems to be a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and therefore the block was arguably appropriate. Also, whether or not Giano was blocked earlier for a less than optimal reason is not relevant to whether this particular block should have been used. JoshuaZ 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted on Doc's talkpage and here on ANI as quickly as I could after unblocking. I'm not clear on why the order of my actions upsets Doc; please note that he himself posted nowhere before blocking—not on Giano's page, and not here. I undid his admin action; anybody's free to undo mine. I don't wheel-war. Now, I'm seriously asking if anybody thought that Giano's far from recent single post was the beginning of a rampage? We don't block punitively, or do we? Bishonen | talk 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

That does depend a little on the definition of recent though. The diff in question here was only timestamped six hours ago. --Crimsone 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say they're part of a long, sorry history of incivility that many of us are only too familiar with. I think he was way out of line–but I don't think he holds that opinion. I think he felt his comments fully justified. That's what troubles me. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure User:Bishonen is sorry she didn't check before unblocking. But is it is permissible for User:Cyde to post material like this to the evidence page (Kelly, apparently, calling various people "primadonnas" and "raving on spewing forth falsehoods") but not permissible for User:Giano to respond in the same place? (He said he had looked at Kelly's blog for the first time, did not find it to his taste, said he was grateful she had gone if that was the best she could do, and expressed displeasure at the nature of Kelly's comments.) -- ALoan (Talk) 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing the issue. Kelly's comments were off-wiki, and she's left the project. If she'd made those comments on wiki I have no doubt she would have been taken to task and possibly blocked. Giano was commenting on evidence. There is no tu quoque here. He doesn't get to be incivil because somebody else was, much as sysops aren't allowed to block people who block them just cause they're annoyed. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is arguably different in that that is what Kelly wanted placed there (and we can't really block kelly at this point). Certainly some refactoring of that by Cyde might have been more responsible (or if Kelly considered that not an option, Kelly could have posted it on her blog and Cyde could have placed a note about it). Regardless, I have trouble seeing why Cyde should be blocked for simply reporting what a user wanted to say. JoshuaZ 00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So were Giano to post the same thing to a blog and I to copy that post to the evidence page at his request, that would be immune? Nonsense! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I apologize if posting those comments was inflammatory, and had I realized that they would be taken as a blanket license for all kinds of on-wiki incivility I never would have posted them here. But I don't think it's appropriate to rationalize Giano's incivility by saying, "But Cyyyyyyde....". --Cyde Weys 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't excuse him in any ways, but... argggghhhhh... Man, you (and Kelly) effectively wandered right in swinging and pushing buttons there. Kelly could have logged in herself if she really felt she had to, and that would have limited the damage a bit, but now you're tangled up in it too.

The community is too big now. Admins have to avoid throwing fuel on the fire better than this. I agree with the original Giano block for his reaction, but what you posted was in the same regime of badness and was clearly provocative. Admins doing provocative stuff and inflaming a situation in wholy new, different manners is terrible for the project... Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to Giano

• Wrong, undoing a single admin action without discussion is wheel waring [49]. But this discussion is sureal. My 'cooling off' block gets criticised (and, no I didn't look at the clock when I blocked him, I was the diff to a hot page and went 'WTF?' - maybe I should just have called it a personal attack block). But Giano seems to get a 'get out of jail free card' just because of a) we like the culprit 2) we don't like the victim. His nasty hateful attack was waaay over the line, and we should be sending out a clear signal that behaviour like that, especially from a well-respected and well-established Wikipedian, is not acceptable. No way, not ever, no chance. No we don't do punative, but we need to prevent this ever happening again, and if that means block to teach lessons, so be it. Now, look at what has happened, and please stop wikilawyering about whether my response was adequate. You can lynch me another day.--Doc 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  Allow me to be the first to stay that I'll hang with Doc. I won't claim that I've never been incivil, but I've always regretted it when it happened and made what amends that I could. I won't ask that Giano apologize, but I do ask that he consider doing his part to make Wikipedia a respectful environment. Is that too much? Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  These are the words of a "well-respected" Wikipedian? Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with Wikipedia then?! --Cyde Weys 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  I can only echo the comments of those above (having pretty much said it all already) --Crimsone 00:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  There is a pattern here [50]--Doc 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  Aye. Giano has a history of personal attacks apparently, and needs to stop. This is not purely punitive: clearly the user has no desire to stop, even when confronted with an arbitration. He needs either to be convinced to do so, or indefinitely blocked in order to stop it. The unilateral unblock went against consensus and was completely uncalled for. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  I agree that there is reason to believe that Giano does have such a history. I offered evidence of it here in the case. He's a great contributor, though. ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  Lar, if I recall correctly, you openly acknowledged that it was you who orchestrated Giano's previous block on IRC. I wonder whether the history repeats itself. It would have been interesting to have statistics as to how much time people supporting Giano's block spend on IRC and how much time people opposing the block spend editing Wikipedia. Then it would be clear what is going on there. Who is building the encyclopaedia and who is buzzing and playing power games around it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in light of everything said and the favourable concensus formed, along with Bishonens statement that she will not replace the block (on Docs talk page), the remaining question it seems would be that of who's going to re-apply it? --Crimsone 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Before we start saying that there is "consensus" let's let some time elapse. Obviously, there wasn't consensus if Bishonen and ALoan were against it. Second, before we start saying there's a "pattern," let's see where that "pattern" comes from. Lar is upset at Giano, who is upset at Lar, and the "evidence" has never been ruled to be accurate. Third, it is the heart of the "contentious Rfar" that "cool off blocks" don't work and aren't sanctioned. Giano was blocked for what? He was blocked for posting evidence to the evidence page, while Cyde and "Pizzahut2" and Kelly Martin were exempted from all civility rules when posting a blog entry to the same page that called several respected administrators all sorts of names and which attacked Giano to boot. Therefore, if you want to suddenly thin your skin and want to police civility on the evidence page of an Rfar, and if you want to appoint yourself Patrolman of ArbCom, then let's get with it and block all of the people who have been uncivil in their evidence. So, this comes down to the following:

1. Justification for the block? Civility where the civility policy either doesn't apply or where it has been waived by the attrocious and absurd "evidence" "on behalf of" Kelly Martin.
2. Validity of the block type? None, as the Rfar has demonstrated with its suspension of Tony Sidaway.
3. Validity of the unblock? I'll see your AN/I consensus and raise it with an AN consensus against "cool off" blocks.

Therefore, the blocking was inflammatory (and therefore a form of baiting, according to the consensus on AN and the Rfar) and the unblocking was to reverse that wrong. This has nothing to do with whether Giano was right for posting that evidence. However, that evidence page has a precedent for calling established wikipedians "trolls" and "prima donnas," so it's already a charred document and a poisoned well. Any further blocking to "cool off" would be another example of trying to provoke, in my opinion. Geogre 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Forgive me Geogre, but you really lost me here. How exactly does the civility policy not apply? Is it open season on the evidence page? Furthermore, Tony hasn't been suspended yet--you can't cite precedent where it doesn't exist. Going beyond that, Tony was considered to be in a dispute with Giano, whereas Doc was not. Finally, you're mixing apples and oranges. Consensus demands context. There was a developing consensus right here, right now, that this block was justified. Let's talk about the issue here. The issue is that Giano is using the kind of language that got Tony blocked, and you're standing here saying it's okay. I'm appalled. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the blog is valid evidence, then civility must not be applying to the evidence page. Secondly, Tony was telling people to fuck off, was calling those who disagreed with him a boil, etc. Giano called a blog nasty names. It's on par with someone calling Something Awful forums bad names: it's not us. To defend the honor of an off-Wikipedia website by throwing the civility policy at someone is illogical. I am saying that the blog entry should have been kicked off instantly. If it had been, it wouldn't have been sitting there for over a week calling everyone who took Kelly to task horrible names. However, the lack of action by anyone to mention it, sanction it, or remove it was certainly suggesting that it was time for someone to talk about that blog. Again, I do not agree with Giano's having said what he said, and I do not endorse his conclusions about the people in their on-wiki life, but I would go further than him and suggest that it's the height of pride to believe that your blog should be used in a case or the height of disrespect for ArbCom to think that the arbitrators will be moved by name-calling. Had the blog's use been sanctioned, I doubt Giano even would have wanted to say anything. Once it's there, though, attacking the blog entry is not attacking a Wikipedia user. Geogre 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Geogre, you seem to be taking the position that evidence of incivility, if introduced, means that commentary on the evidence may also be incivil. I don't buy that for an instant. Furthermore, there's precedent that the use of inflammatory and incivil language, even if not directed at a specific user (which is arguably was, regardless), is improper. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by this line of reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am all for holding everyone accountable to consistent standards, however, IMHO Giano's post was not evidence, was not reasonable debating talk, but crossed the line into unacceptable. It was a proper block for incivility.
• You have an active RfAr available to make the point for equal treatment for equally provocative attacks, which (unlike ANI) is actually an appropriate and potentially effective venue. Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen that the block was premature. Still the Giano's comment was incivil and I left a stern warning on his talk page. I hope the issue is settle by now abakharev 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• It will be if he takes it to heart, unlike all the other pleadings and warnings. I confess my good faith has been sorely stretched. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The justification for the block was personal attacks.
2. The validity of the block was per the spirit of NPA - an experienced editor broke the rules with full knowledge of what he was doing.
3. The "cool off" block thing, well- maybe, maybe not - what other message is there to send?

I've not got any interest in becoming a policeman but there's a whole grade (a few actually) between "primadonna" and "oh look, I've got to wipe my shoe becasue it seems I've trodden on something".

Do you propose that such behaviour is acceptable? --Crimsone 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. We don't need groups ganging up on either other. We don't need more hard feelings. But it's a mistake to be this uncivil, and anyone who is so uncivil needs to agree that the mistake shouldn't be repeated in the future. Period, end of story. --Interiot 01:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He called a blog something nasty! That's not calling Kelly Martin something nasty unless we start saying that Kelly Martin's blog is part of Wikipedia. It isn't, I hope. I hope that I can form a negative opinion of it, too. Also, I think the stern warning is enough, but not because the substance of what he said was uncivil, but because it was incredibly poorly timed and unnecessary. Geogre 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, let me get this right. you are saying this is not substantially uncivil?--Doc 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder how you would react if I attacked some of your much vaunted featured articles in the same language that you claim Giano merely attacked Kelly's blog over. --Cyde Weys 01:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have at it! I don't think I provide offense with them, don't think I use them to settle scores, don't think they're all about me, but I won't be blocking anyone for saying something about me. I don't believe in blocking for NPA in the first place. However, I also know the strength of my FA's because a community assessed them and that was on Wikipedia and they're written by several people and are not just by me about me for me and to me. Geogre 10:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, not blocking for NPA would indeed drive good editors away. It's the bad ones that tend to make most personal attacks. If they were allowed to drive the good and established editors away through wiki turning a blind eye, what would we have left?. The internet can be a nasty enough place as it is. (not that NPA blocking is under debate here - just an analogy) --Crimsone 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the rhetoric bores me now. Let me cut to the chase. Is it more important to criticise an expired three-hour block, than this? --Doc 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Giano's comment was unacceptable. I think that most of us agree that Cyde's posting of Kelly's blog was unnacceptable. I think all of agree would agree that one mistake does not excuse another. Any (short answer) disagreement with that? - brenneman ^{L} 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you find the discussion boring. Perhaps you would like to spell out what you think the personal attack was, because all I can see is Giano criticising the content of the blog. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. That won't wash. --Doc 01:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have set out my analysis of his post above. Washing (off the soil, on one's shoes) is entirely the correct metaphor to use, after walking through the muddy field. It is expressed in rather stronger terms than I would use, but I agree that the blog is unpleasant. I really don't see how the blog postings can be added as "evidence" but criticism of it cannot. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh) The issue is not the criticism. The issue is the language he used. Put this way: if Kelly made that post on-wiki, she'd be blocked (justifiably). There is no license to incivility here. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an intellectually sound parsing of Giano's post. "If this is the best she has to offer, etc." is clearly an enthymeme, with the implied premise that it is, in fact, the best she has to offer. Arguing that Giano should not have been blocked because other parties have, up to now, had a free hand to be uncivil and the block represents favoritism, cabalism, surrealism, or whatever is reasonable. Claiming that his message conveyed nothing or was intended to convey nothing about Kelly's character is shameful and disappointing, coming as it does from people both intelligent and principled. Choess 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted. Hate that. ALoan, you may wish to go back and reread Giano's post. It is not criticism. It is insulting and demeaning. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 01:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ALoan, I hate to speak "against" you here, as you're one of the Wikipedians I respect most, but Giano's post is perfectly analogous to Tony's "boil" post on ANI or AN or whatever it was. It was destined only to escalate the situation, and while it could be read as innocuous, it was clearly not. The "I seem to have trodden in something very unpleasant" was every bit as bad as the "boil" comment. I do not endorse this block, but let us not grant free permission to transgress the rules of civil discourse in retaliation any more than we would in initiation. All must be held to the same standards. This isn't about Cyde. This isn't about Kelly. We all need to behave ourselves so that we can have constructive discussions. --Robth^Talk 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Naturally if you don't see anything wrong with the diff then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I'm not content to see such language employed, particularly with the insinuations of character, but that's just me and I suppose I'm old-fashioned in my sensibilities. Doc's response is curt but to the point–you might not be offended but others obviously were. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why didn't you put a block or ban or vote for a block or ban for those responsible for the "lying prima donnas?" Seriously: if the response to writing that ("off wiki loophole" just like "I said you were a bastard bitch from hell on IRC so that's a loophole") is occasion for thanks, then how could Giano anticipate that calling the blog offal would occasion a block, except, to quote above, that you like one offender and not another (which he shouldn't believe)? How was that vicious, attack-strewn post not censured? It was breath-taking. Also, if Kelly has left (although she's on IRC every day), then putting in a block for repeated personal attacks won't harm her any, and it would do a great deal to show that civility is expected on all sides. Geogre 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On one hand he called it an unpleaseant nasty smelly little journal, and on the other compared it unfavourably in not only describing his opinion, but doing so through the proxy of the opinions of others of her... Then to continue and describe it as excrement haveing basically compared the blog to its writer, and better still, that he'd have to clean his shoes after steppring in it. The whole thing is a personal attack! Crimsone 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, he said that anyone who writes that shouldn't be thanked (a current proposed remedy), and he asked why the thanks was being agreed to. Evidence for the thanking motion was not presented on the evidence page. Again, I agree with a harsh warning, and I clapped my head in my hands the same as Newyorkbrad, but if the posting was a repetition of the mistakes of the past, then so was the "cool off" block -- the wording of which was eerily similar to what got Tony blocked. Geogre 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Don't you people learn anything? "Cool-down" blocks are good for only one thing: generating drama. They serve only to piss off the (usually good) contributor at hand and further the bitching rather than actually resolve the dispute.

Giano's response may have been harsh, but the material he was responding to was a downright vile personal attack on him. It was hardly uncalled for. Rebecca 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vile it was. The best response would have been to ignore it and move on. Tu quoque is never an acceptable defense, and I'm surprised to hear it coming from a former arbitrator. I hope we're not encouraging this kind of thing. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see anyone defending either Kelly's comments or Cyde's personal attacks in the posting of them. Giano is right to be affronted, but the manner in which he chose to express it was just too much. - brenneman ^{L} 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's well established by now that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Would you please stop trying to justify bad actions by saying, "Ohh, but someone else did it?" That certainly doesn't fly on AFD either ... "Ohhh, we should keep this non-notable article, because we have all of those other non-notable articles". --Cyde Weys 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Us people," as it were, are trying to end the cycle of incivility. Good contributions don't give someone a free pass to be incivil whenever he feels like it. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but neither do you have an excuse for being uselessly provocative and stirring up pointless drama instead of finding someone with actual conflict resolution skills. Rebecca 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Rebecca in that the block was not expected to have a cooling effect. Giano's subsequent comments were absolutely innocent. The block was scored to escalate drama and it obviously succeeded in doing just that. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When I tell my six-year-old off for being nasty to her sister, she often responds with the riduiculous defence of "but she called me a [insert nasty word] first".--Doc 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Although obviously the system would work better if the degree of equity were increased. For this matter, I would feel worse about the block if Giano had actually posted some evidence, but clearly that wasn't the case. The quality of the blog is not relevant to the arbitration case at issue. Denigrating its quality was a completely unuseful attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, wise father than I am sure you are, you will surely chastise both of them. Or are you saying that retaliation is worse than a first offence?

Why does Cyde get one of those fabled "free passes" to post uncivil text containing personal attacks from a blog? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Cyde did or didn't do, two wrongs don't make a right - you condemned Cyde, will you now condemn this? ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And just to add to that, Cyde admitted that it might not have been a good idea to post the blog excerpt, and taken some responsibility for it. Kelly took some responsibility for her actions in the blog and seemed sincere. I think that Giano should take a step back and acknowledge his edits were not in anyone's bests interests.

More importantly though, where is this going to end? Who is going to be the first person to let a perceived slight pass them by? More and more editors are being drawn into this everytime it flares up and the sniping isn't accomplishing anything. A lot of pent up frustration was released over the last month but now it's time to stop I think. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW the lasting damage of a personal attack depends upon the prominence of the place. E.g. his block log is with a user forever. An incivil comment on an obscure arbcom page removed in a three hours would have almost no damaging effect if not advertised all over the Wikipedia space. I would suggest to cut on the advertisements of [some diff|If you want to see the most shocking attack in the wikipedia history - click here] -type. abakharev 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You Are All... Really Beautiful People

Jesus, I go off to talk to a man about a horse and I come back and find the lights on and loud music playing and all of you wrestling naked in lime Jell-O. Why doesn't anyone tell me when the parties start?

OK, listen, everyone take a deep breath. Really. Do it now. In.... out... There. Doesn't that feel good?

Now then. To work. Without getting into the minutiae of whether Kelly's blog post was vile (it was) or whether Giano's post on the evidence page was a personal attack on a former editor (it was), the only point I'd like to make is that blocking someone who is currently in the middle of an arbitration case is not the best thing to be doing. If it was, I can promise you that there is at least one person recently active on this same RFArb who I would have been blocking for 3.6 minute stretches every 4 minutes. For fun. Until he cried. But I held off because it's an arbitration case, and because the arbitrators get to determine what is "too far" in that context. Generally speaking, I don't see any utility in blocking people for comments on arbitration cases unless they are engaging in behavior that is actively disruptive, as opposed to just nasty.

So please, everyone, on both sides of this question, dial down the indignation. If you think the other guy is clearly wrong, just remember that time wounds all heels. Nandesuka 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the minutiae of whether Kelly's blog post was vile (it was) or whether Giano's post on the evidence page was a personal attack on a former editor (it was): I haven't seen the former; I think there's a case for claiming the latter is a personal attack but I'm not persuaded that it is. Still: the only point I'd like to make is that blocking someone who is currently in the middle of an arbitration case is not the best thing to be doing. Warmly seconded. -- Hoary 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A wise posting. Thirded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I think Giano's post was an effort to express sincere disagreement with the proposed decision, based on the practices he saw/personality he saw in that blog and was not a personal attack in any sense. However, we've all made our statements, except for the assumption that "incivility" is a reason to block someone or that "cooling off" is a valid type of block. Geogre 10:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, do we block for incivility or not?

I blocked an editor for saying this [51]. Sarah Ewart later blocked the same editor for similar remarks [52]. They are not preventative in the sense of stopping immediate ongoing incivility, but are preventative (or maybe corrective) because we hope this editor will learn that rules about civility and personal attacks are enforced. Were we wrong?

Giano should have been blocked for a minimum of 24 hours, not to "cool down", but to let him know that basic standards of civility are enforced here. The fact that Giano has supporters among respected admins does not relieve him of the responsibility to be nice, or at least minimally decent, and the support he gets simply teaches him that he is untouchable. Well then, why should I block some anonymous lady for calling other editors liars, vandals and thugs just because she never had the fortune to befriend a senior administrator? Thatcher131 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, I see that there have been good grounds for opposing your RfA. Concerns about your facile interpretation of the blocking policy are valid. You seem to be unable to see a difference between a stray troll (whose edits you cite) and a "high status contributor" as Fred Bauder termed Giano. Since incivil comments by non-editing admins are still allowed (see examples below), your denigrating attitude towards prolific editors will lead to massive exodus of quality contributors from Wikipedia to rival projects. Since I've never seen you active in mainspace, I don't think such a perspective bothers you, right? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone blocked, even the anonymous editor I have been dealing with lately. And Interiot's comment below (the second one, at 04:49) hit me right between the eyes. However, I am at a loss over what to do about it. (It is for this reason that I never commented in the first Giano thread, and will probably avoid this one from now on.) Let's say we only block "when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia". Well, slagging off on someone is only disruptive if that person or that person's friends take offense. So should we all turn the other cheek, and let some editors make crude personally disparaging remarks? There wouldn't be any disruption that way, but Wikipedia would be a less and less inviting place to hang around. Or, if disruption only occurs when people take offense, then the disruptiveness of a comment (and hence, its blockability) becomes a function of how many friends the target and offender each have. Regarding your specific concerns about me, my approach in this case would have been to ask Giano nicely to reword his observations. It's a fair question to ask if the arbcom should really be thanking someone who writes such things on a public blog. And my opinion is somewhat different now than when I started this subthread, thanks to Interiot, although I now have no idea how to deal with cases like this (and will nothing to do with them myself any more), and clearly the 50 or so principles and findings of fact haven't helped a damn thing. Thatcher131 11:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation, Thatcher. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair comment. But unless we start to apply the same standards not to friends of adminstrators but to the adminstrators themselves we'll keep having this problem. - brenneman ^{L} 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it. I've really had enough of this now. Time to start blocking everyone who lowers the level of discourse around here. Giano shouldn't get a free pass because some people perceive some admins as getting free passes. --Cyde Weys 03:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, should we start from this, this or this? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We're all human, we're going to slip up, but anyone who gets in the habit of incivility should be strongly reminded that civility is important, no matter who they are. --Interiot 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see... In that case, can we start with diff? When someone tells someone to "get the **** off" a talk page, it is incivility. Yet it was not done... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We should block for incivility. Otherwise, we can take WP:CIV and delete it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

YES! Why would this ever be in doubt? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:BP doesn't really reflect it in its current form. It says "Block are only to prevent disruption" and "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia", and WP:NPA says "In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the 'disruption' clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial." --Interiot 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that Kelly Martin is no longer a member of the project, does WP:NPA apply to her? (I don't have a dog in this hunt; I'm just trying to find an cheap-and-dirty bureaucratic way to excuse Giano's statement and put an end to this argument.) --Aaron 04:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How about WP:BLP? Does that apply to her? Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the whole point of WP:NPA is to maintain a collegial atmosphere. Sniping at people who aren't here at the moment doesn't really serve that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't create a collegial atmosphere by trashing former colleagues. She obviously has many supporters here who think she was badly treated, and Giano's comments obviously set them off. Plus, pissing on someone who's left is about as civil as poking a caged animal with a stick. Shall we now tolerate all of SPUI's former opponents slagging him? How about Freakofnurture, or Gator1? Thatcher131 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or even Katefan0 or RickK? Scobell302 04:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in shouting that Kelly left Wikipedia, especially after reading the thread about "drama queens" on her talk page. I'm sure Kelly will return whenever she thinks it's time. From what I know, both Kelly and Tony are busy on IRC, where they may be more helpful at the moment. Since comments about "bitches from hell" are tolerated there, civility rules apparently don't apply to IRC and people who spend most time there. They are applied only to those who is active in mainspace editing. Nobody is disputing that incivility is blockable. The question is who determines which comments are beyond the pale and deserve blocking. As interpreted by Dmcdevit, Cyde and Thatcher, only defenceless prolific editors are guilty of incivility, while IRC regulars are given a free pass. And that's disturbing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would appreciate if you would not use my name, for absolutely no identifiable reason in this context, to make exaggerated and insulting insinuations against me. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I hurt you. I was thinking about this, of course. Since you are here, I would like to know your opinion about incivility on IRC (which is rampant). Is it really good for Wikipedia to have a special off-wiki venue for personal attacks? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I regret that I still have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect it's because you don't either, but you'd like to make insinuations about me anyway. I'm pleased to have everyone (including you, if you really haven't) look at that RFC. You'll see that 1) it has nothing to do with incivility 2) I made a well reasoned argument which 3) had overwhelming support. IRC is often stupid and off-topic, and it's not my job to defend it to anyone, but it's clearly not a venue for personal attacks. In any case, I will point out to you that I was the one that removed Tony Sidaway's access to the admins channel for incivility, and I'll do it again if need be. Let me ask you something. Is it good for Wikipedia to be used as an on-wiki venue for personal attacks? I'm confident you'll answer in the negative, but you'll have to remove your own incivility from this page if you want to remain logically consistent. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Either we discuss issues openly and robustly, or we have a maiden aunts' tea party. As with every subjective (not to say speculative) concept, the discussion of civility is prone to degenerating into mutual accusations of incivility (which it does below). It's very easy to hijack any discussion in that direction. You can't measure incivility by meters and tons. What is incivil for one person, is quite civil for another. Therefore I apologise to everyone who thought my comments were incivil. I consider further discussion of the subject counterproductive and suggest the discussion to be archived. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually if I can remove the personal attack and the user does not re-insert it, or if the PA was in the edit summaries but the editor apologized, I see the matter to be closed. Otherwise I act if there is a number of incivility warnings already or the incivility is really gross (do you really need examples of gross incivility?). abakharev 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we either set a precedent or start a process/procedure for blocking established editors for incivility. It has been shown that there are editors who aren't vandals, POV pushers, trolls, or spammers that tend to the incivil side and currently Wikipedia is giving them a free pass in its indecision and dislike of drama. Not that I blame anyone for that...

The purpose of this would be to make it very clear that Wikipedia will not allow gross incivility from anyone while ensuring that every block does not need to result in or result of an ArbCom case. If the whole thing is engineered to be as kind, but firm as possible, I'd hope it could prevent the huge drama which seems to result from situations such as this.

This is what I'd hope to see:

1. A decision on what to put as a block reason that isn't "HAY LOOK AT [WORST DIFF EVER]" nor that puts the user in any great disrepute, as the block log is permanent, as others have said.
2. A set amount of time that isn't controversial, and a set way to come to the conclusion that the editor should be blocked.
3. No amount of favoritism as to administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, FA writers, vandal fighters, anyone. Everyone should be held to the same standards of civility.
4. An extreme disinclination to undo the block. Editors should ideally sit out their blocks and if they dislike the inconvenience should note doubly not to repeat the behavior. Current blocking policy says that blocks are not punishment, but if there are no consequences for being grossly incivil, there is no incentive not to be. Wikipedia needs to maintain a collegial atmosphere and needs to give a stern message to those who disrupt that, no matter who they are.

Thoughts? Opinions? Condemnations? :] --Keitei (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Incivil ad hominem comments by User:Ghirlandajo removed.--Doc 08:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal endorsed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what's so incivil about these comments. If my comments are considered incivil and this comment is a model of civility, I readily see what Cyde-Doc-Keitei's proposal will lead to. Expendable cogs will ever be blocked at the mercy of IRC dudes who "hate cruft". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment was said to a friend in love - and he's not in the least offended (I checked). Your comment is a nasty attack pouring gasoline on what is already a fire. And if you can't see that, then I've nothing more to say to you.--Doc 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments were valid and to the point. There are various civility standards for IRC regulars and quality editors. Incivility blocks are OK. It's just the matter of interpretation. I fail to see how Cyde's posting on behalf of Kelly was civil, while Giano's retort merited a block. Either they both should have been blocked, or both comments should have been speedily removed (as you just did with mine). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments were not civil. Don't crusade to clean up IRC, when you can't clean up your own posts. And that Cyde behaved badly excuses nothing. 'Oh but he did it first' is a silly argument. Cyde has (I believe) aknowledged his error, I would have unblocked Giano the instant he aknowledged his. Will you please aknowledge the fact that your edit was most unhelpful. Then we can perhaps move civilly to deal with any outstanding issues.--Doc 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do hate cruft. That's why I spend so much time trying to rewrite game-guide, speculation, and nonsense into sourced, encyclopedic articles. I wonder what it has to do with dealing with incivil users, or why you're flailing for out-of-context reasons to smear anyone who is critical of your incendiary tone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think punitive blocks such as these should never be done at a single administrator's discretion (that means, they should be discussed on Wikipedia first), as the block log is permanent and different people have different standards for what constitutes "gross incivility". In the case of blocks that are not meant to be preventative, there is time to discuss first, block later. Otherwise, unblocking will very often be justified. I have no idea how to do anything against the favoritism, though. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with incivility blocks for established editors is that they split editors into two groups. Established editors who are incivil are probably at the end of their teather, and if they find themselves blocked for letting their true feelings show they are just as likely to see this as yet another injustice as they are to pause and reflect, then withdraw their comments. Personally I would suggest incivility blocks only be applied after discussion and last for a token length of time (an hour, half an hour, something like that.) However I haven't applied one. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't applied a block for incivility either, but I probably have a higher tolerance than many other people. I agree with you that quickly applied blocks often just lead to more perceptions of injustice. That is why I think they should never be applied vigilante-style by a single admin's discretion. Separation of executive and judicial powers is a good thing, and should look and be more fair than having admins act as policeman and judge at once. Kusma (討論) 10:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - how about this? yes? no?

It seems pretty clear that there is a tendancy to say that incivility is utterly unacceptable. It also seems that some people have some concerns over the effects and the process that would result and be used for incivility blocks.

Personally, on the matter of Giano, I am now (reluctantly) giving in to letting it pass by now - it's a long time in the past, and this entire debate is evidence enough to demonstrate to him the disruption that can be caused by and from and the unnacceptable nature of his incivility.

However, it seems that this heated debate may have spawned some positive results in the form of suggestions of how to improve Wikipedia. It does still seem to be a little overheated though (I say after having just sat out a self imposed 9 hour block lol!). While I accept that neither RFC or ANI are usually the most ideal places for it, in the interests of cooling down and hopefully bringing all concerned back together, might I suggest an end to this particular debate for now, and that an RFC be opened on the subject of incivility blocks in (maybe) 12-24 hours time?

(Just an idea!) --Crimsone 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The primary problem isn't incivility blocks, the problem is incivility and personal attacks, and people who tolerate them. We should not tollerate such, especially from established editors. However, we've still got people who'd rather wikilawyer and politic rather than condeming this type of thing. Yes, at the margins, incivility will be a matter of interpretation - but anyone trying to say that post is anything other than outrageous is simply on another planet.--Doc 10:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with you Doc (really, I'm not. I agree. lol). However, this long after the event, I'm not sure a block can reallly have much validity. However, if a course of action is decided in dealing with incivility, then the tools will be there should this arise again (and thus, in that knowledge, this wouldn't arise again).

Only yesterday I removed a report of mild incivility from WP:PAIN, and the user got back to me on my talk page asking what to do about it. Of course, the only answer I could give was that of "contact an admin if you like, though the norm is to reason it out between yourselves" - not so good.

I really do feel that the wider issue needs to take priority at this point as there seems to be a rather fundamental problem that needs addressing. --Crimsone 10:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion should have ended when folks had set out their positions, which was yesterday. I have nothing to add to the "block Giano" discussion, but the newly emergent "We all agree that blocks for personal attacks are good" will be another topic. Geogre 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of personal attacks and civility, I say No. There is a really good reason that NPA doesn't enter BP. There is a really good reason that I don't block for NPA. No one knows who determines the difference between an "incivil" comment and a "provocative" comment and a "debate." I absolutely, wholeheartedly, disagree with this sort of blind plunging ahead. The entire thing begs the question. You cannot block for an incivil comment unless you know what one is. Bishonen, ALoan, and I all thought, for example, that Giano's comments were at least poorly timed, and I thought they were harsh, but they were not an attack on a person. On the other hand, Friends of Kelly see them as vicious attacks. So...where does that leave us? Does the most offended win? Tony and others were previously blocking people for being angry. No, no, no. Explain in detail who is going to determine when and whether an attack has been made, and then we can advocate blocking for attacks. Geogre 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, there never could have been a moment when his remarks were "well-timed." Futhermore, suggesting that the only people who seek his remarks as inappropriate are "Friends of Kelly" is needlessly divisive. I'm not aware that I've openly placed myself in one camp or the other; I prefer that I not be pigeonholed in such a manner. I would point to the recent precedent regarding Tony Sidaway as evidence that the "most offended" do indeed win. Tony's being punished for his "filth" comment, in case you missed it. I don't support a general blocking policy at the moment, but I do support dealing with editors who think they have a free pass to shoot their mouth off and make inappropriate comments. This isn't the first time Giano crossed the line, and I have little doubt that it will be the last. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre and would say further that there are many cases where subtle attempts at humour, irony, self-deprecation etc. have been totally misread. Anyone on WikiEN-L will be aware of the recent discussion there about sarcasm and irony. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here. You say you don't consider this to be a personal attack? I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.--Doc 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

where does it say we block for incivility without warning? Blocking Giano in the middle of his (heated) RfAr was stupid, and arguably partisan. If Doc really, absolutely felt he had to invervene to save Wikipedia from Giano's venomous remarks, he could have posted a warning or two "I am going to block you soon" on Giano's talkpage. Protesting a "cooling off" block sounds like a sick joke in this case, and I am sure it didn't have the desired effect. Instead we are having another endless debate here. WP:CIVIL like any policy must be applied with common sense. If you are unsure if your own common sense is sufficient, ask for opinions right here, beforehand. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I persoally never said ALL NPA blocks are fine. However - blocks for persistant or severe attacks are fine (as per the mention in WP:BP). This is however all I'm going to say though, in light of my opening comment of this subsection. --Crimsone 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's all this about IRC? As my father would say, what does have to do with the streetcar running? IRC isn't part of Wikipedia. It's not. Repeat that until it's firmly ingrained. If people make personal attacks on the IRC channel then I deplore their candor and ask them to cool off. If people make personal attacks on Wikipedia, in full view of the whole world, I remind them that Wikipedia (as opposed to IRC) has a civility policy and that they should consider their remarks more carefully. To each according to its own rules. If I go walk outside and tell my neighbor what a horrible [gerund] that [adjective] [username] is, do I face arbcom sanction? No, because arbcom doesn't have jurisdiction over Michigan (thank heavens). What someone may or may not have said on a completely different site does not, has never, and will never excuse or justify incivility on this site. Any discussion in this context of an IRC channel is an attempt to divert our attention from things which happen on-wiki. I am responsible to Wikipedia for things that I say here, and I am responsible to freenode and members of the channel for things I say there. Enough. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Geogre: I hope it's not coming across that I was trying to implement a means to block Giano as this was not my intention at all. Rather, I intended to provoke discussion as to how one could go about dealing with the incivility everyone seems to take so much offense to (cf. reaction to comments by Tony Sidaway, etc). I apologize if this is the wrong place to initiate discussion. However, the discussion of blocking established editors for perceived incivility had been started here, so I figured trying to begin constructive discussion in this vein was worth a shot. --Keitei (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - and I felt it was worth trying again. Ho hum.... (sigh). --Crimsone 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we done now?

Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, can we all just go do something else for a while now? Please? - brenneman ^{L} 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I object to any attempt to suggest that discussion need serve a purpose. Shame Brenneman, for trying to silence discourse. Actually, no, I think we've long moved past the point where anything useful might be accomplished, but the precedent this sets scares me. The ability of editors to insist on on-wiki civility has been severely compromised today. All anyone need to do know is point to or claim "off-wiki" incivility "made him do it" and we'll have to give him a pass. Unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Parody not appreciated. Don't paste off-wiki into wiki, and the off-wiki won't be commented. Don't allow off-wiki as evidence, and no one can question the evidence. Lastly, don't use off wiki to manage on-wiki actions unless you are prepared to have that discussion entirely reiterated on-wiki. That's simple enough, isn't it? Geogre 11:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I tagged 150 unsourced fair-use image as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed - Less WikiDrama, more gnome-ing and writing please. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the group hug and self-validation over on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision clearly did not work. Shall we try again?

When this contretemps kicked off with the block yesterday, I had recently created a nice but short article on a whore-hunting gin-hating 18th century London magistrate; had my second article of the day on WP:DYK; and was busy adding references to my next FAC at some stupid time in the morning, and then adding it to (and dealing with prompt comments from) WP:PR. Today, I have been another another couple of current or future WP:DYKs, and considering whether to write up Admiral Sir David Scott or Captain Bill Jewell (both involved in Operation Mincemeat). I also have a collection of redlinks, if you are looking for something to do (containing such neglected delights as tiltyard, Kalamita Bay, Birdcage Walk, Hawaii Territorial Guard, Château de Challeau, red palm weevil, Battle of Roucoux, Charollais cattle, Radio Free Scotland, Sophie Blanchard, Aldermaston March and Thinking man's crumpet). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposal CS600

Why don't we set a rule that anyone that is to edit wikipedia MUST register his/her IP number or numbers? Whoever does not have a registered IP number won't be able to change anything on the wikipedia. I mean, wikipedia is already big right? If we want to make it better maybe we should start sharpening our means to access pages.Besides that is going to discourage vandals and we will be able to track down the ones that mess with pages. User:Camilo Sanchez

The username and IP address used to make every edit is already recorded, so that information is available to certain privileged users if required: that's how Checkuser works. What would making the IP addresses of usernames publically available achieve in terms of disuading vandals? Gwernol 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WeAreSmarter

136.141.2.76 has spammed several articles' Talk pages with the following message:

Special Announcement: Wikipedia, Wharton School and MIT Sloan invite you to participate in a novel wiki experiment to write a book titled We Are Smarter Than Me. Visit http://www.WeAreSmarter.com to learn more about this wiki project.

Please note the hidden comments. Does anyone have any verification that this is legit or is just mildly clever spam? It certainly smells fishy to me... If it's not legit, can an admin roll back all of this user's edits so an editor doesn't have to tackle them all by hand? Thanks! --ElKevbo 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits. I don't know if they are legit or not, but the talk pages of articles is clearly not the appropriate place for this kind of stuff. Talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the articles only, not for solicitation to help out with other projects. Jimbo certainly knows this, so that's why I don't think he endorsed this particular tactic. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde - I am that user with 136.141.2.76 IP. Please do accept my apologies for the spam. I have wrongly assumed that talk pages are used to announce related wiki projects (thus the name "talk page"?) I don't have any experience with wikipedia and didn't know that this would be considered spamming. Again, my sincere apologies are in order...Incidentally, what would be an appropriate way to announce http://www.WeAreSmarter.com project to wikipedia community?

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise things. --InShaneee 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Absolute revert: Forget whether the project is laudable or not, look what it says: "Wikipedia...invites you." No one speaks for Wikipedia, and "Wikipedia" is not a person who can invite anyone. That invalidates the claim by itself. It wouldn't matter if it were a link to Wheresgeorge.com or answers.com: serial promotion of any venture, non-profit, or informational page is absolutely out. Geogre 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur, and I've removed a couple other instances. In one of the hidden comments, the banner says, "The project is led by Tom Malone... and Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia." I've heard nothing whatever about Jimbo working on this project, and WeAreSmarter.com makes no claim to this connection either. Jimbo is listed as being on their "advisory board," but does not a Wikipedia-endorsed project make. (Even if Jimbo is involved, the spam is inappropriate.) I know there's a fancy schmancy way of seeing whether there are outbound links on Wikipedia to WeAreSmarter.com; I would suggest someone conduct such a search to make sure the claim that WeAreSmarter.com is somehow a Wikipedia project has been purged. JDoorjam Talk 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A scan of the website does not list Wikipedia as a partner. However, according to the website Jimmy Wales is on the Advisory Board [53]. — ERcheck (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that such a project might be mentioned at Community Portal talk, Village Pump or some other places; perhaps even Signpost - but certainly not random article talk pages. Not too mention that the wording of the annoucement, as discussed above, does not fill one with confidence about it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diana Irey

An anon. IP and/or MRMKJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are WP:SPA for a congressional election between Diana Irey and John Murtha(the anon). I tag as SPA and now the IP, 12.72.71.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is harassing and threating to block users.[54][55] (Note: the ip changes, but has the same range.)

Note the Irey article and its talk were semi-protected a while back because of this anon. [56] This IP is now POV pushing at the Murtha article.[57]

Proof of SPA: 12.72.121.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 12.72.119.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 12.72.120.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 12.72.120.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 12.72.118.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and more on the talk pages. Arbusto 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Low level vandalims right now, but you can ask at WP:RFPP if it escalates in the run-up to the election itself. Guy 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The IP is removing cited material on the Murtha.[58] These article need to be protected. There were some serious violations of WP:BLP. Arbusto 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP range did it again.[59] and is also doing some WP:TE.[60][61] Arbusto 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay time to semi-protect the Murtha article.[62] Or block that IP range, which has again changed. Arbusto 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User:65.244.245.5 & Rhino Records spam

Can someone please block 65.244.245.5 again? He or she has been adding links to Rhino Records' website on multiple pages that link directly to product pages (i.e. commercial link spam). Apparently he or she has done this in the recent past and been blocked for it. It seems another block may be in order. (Why do I keep finding these people today?) Thanks! Please let me know if this "report" is in error or better placed elsewhere! --ElKevbo 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

LorenzoPerosi1898

This user has persistently made extreme POV and unverifiable changes to the Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein pages. When these are corrected, he reverts them back again. Please block him. Thanks. Grover cleveland 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He has since done the same thing at Don Lorenzo Perosi. See here. His attitude is not improving. Grover cleveland 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh come off it - hyperbolic praise of pianists and removing a {{fact}} are grounds for blocking him? I've left a note asking him to tone down the enthusiasm, but his intentions are good - he's a newish editor, he needs to be given some latitude (and he also needs to learn that gushing praise is not the correct tone for articles). I've left a note on his talk page. --ajn (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of logo galleries on TV station articles

A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally removed historic logo galleries from various TV station articles, claiming WP:FUC #1, which is overly vague. Can someone explain? (See WT:TVS) for more.) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I was citing WP:FUC #3 and #8. I erroneously cited #1 in one edit summary, because I was removing some images from (other, unrelated) articles because of #1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ray Lopez Outbreak

Banned user Ray Lopez is with us again. [63] The IP address and style are clearly his, or a sock puppet. Stirling Newberry 02:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:209.175.175.11

I have looked at the talk page, and maybe the computer should be blocked permanently? Up to you maties. Enlil Ninlil 04:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Christopher Shays / Diane_Farrell / et alia

Christopher Shays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / Diane_Farrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is making my head spin. I had some small part in a civility discussions with Francisx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) but american politics is something I really would prefer to stay away from. It appears to be spread over two articles at least, and I have to admit I simply don't have the taste for sorting it out. Does anyone feel like stepping in, or must I simply grit my teeth and do some homework? - brenneman ^{L} 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Brevity isn't my forté. The three articles are Shays, Farrell, and Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. I left a summary of the current situation on FloNight's talk page, but the situation has escalated since I last heard from her: I don't know her timing or if she's around. We have issues of civility, BLP, poorly-sourced edits not using reliable sources, and the latest is the insertion of almost direct copies of Farrell campaign ad material into Shays' article. (Shays should be scratching his head at why we allow that.) With the election in 3 weeks, and BLP issues occuring, mediation might not be the most effective option. There is currently an almost copy of Farrell campaign material on Shay's article: my attempt to remove it and start over was reverted. Sandy 07:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what the issue is. What Sandy calls "Farrell campaign material" consists of three reliably-sourced Shays quotations on the War in Iraq she says are taken out of context. Yet when asked to place them in context or amplify his views, she resists. Instead, we have massive reverts of sourced information, and ceaseless appeals to multiple Admins to block good faith NPOV edits. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have to answer to the Shays campaign, but even if it did, I'm not sure what WP would have to apologize for. Moreover, these quotations are absolutely necessary: Chris Shays has congressional oversight over the Iraq war, as the chair of a top congressional subcommittee, and his views on Iraq are extremely important. These quotations explain those views. It is silly to remove NPOV information about the Iraq war views of a top Congressman with oversight over the Iraq War, just because the Iraq war is a topic in the campaign.Francisx 07:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not resisted anything: my only edit was reverted, after long talk page discussion of an accumulation of things that needed to be addressed. Yes, Wikipedia does have to answer to any living person, which is why we have WP:BLP. The section (Views on Iraq) is written from and structured after Farrell's campaign ad, including direct quotes presented exactly as in her ad, POV and all, with no attempt at encyclopedic tone, neutrality, or balance. It does not behoove Wikipedia for a candidate's article in a widely-watched race to copy, parrot and summarize his opponent's campaign ad material: Farrell campaign material (not a reliable source) is used to source other edits in the articles, in addition to the BLP problems that are occuring. The article cannot be structured to parrot Farrell's campaign ad; I reverted to a previous version to provide a better place for starting over. This is separate from the civility issues, including labeling my attempt to remove the copy of the ad as "vandalism", ongoing failure to assume good faith, and repeated BLP issues. The current content is far from NPOV: it is an exact copy of quotes taken out of context from Farrell's campaign material, with no attempt at context, balance, or neutrality. Sandy 08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "direct quotes" are direct quotes from Chris Shays, cited and properly attributed in the article to the Connecticut Post and CNN, not from a Farrell Campaign ad. No commentary or POV is added. As for my use of the word "vandalism," it concerned Sandy's removal of a large portion of sourced text here [64]. I also think this conversation (at least from our end) is probably better suited for the article's discussion page or arbitrartion.Francisx 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes exactly parroting Farrell's ads. Verbatim. Farrell campaign POV, no balance, no context. The entire section written to parrot her ad. My edit *moved* a lot of sourced material around to accomodate other problems (discussed on talk), and only deleted the section parroting the Farrell ad. Sandy 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy has been invited repeatedly to provide exactly the context she's talking about. She hasn't done so. These quotations are straightforward -- they aren't "gotcha" quotes by any stretch of the imagination -- and if Sandy feels they need contextualization, she should provide it. Instead, she's trying to turn this into a revert war. --Francisx 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They still aren't completely cited, but I'm about halfway through finding and filling in sources and full text: they are all selective, biased, out of context portions of Shays' quotes, creating POV. "CNN 8/31/2006" is not a reference. So, I'm doing the research to correct a copy violation that wasn't mine. Sandy 10:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem this creates for Wiki isn't that hard to understand. You turn on your TV, you see an ad where Farrell is attacking Shays' record on Iraq. You read Shays' Wikipedia article, you see the exact presentation, the exact words, in the exact same order, you just saw on TV in a 30-second sound bite. You realize that Shays' entry in Wiki is Farrell's campaign ad. How can that not cause a problem for Wiki? How do we let that happen? In five years, how does it happen that the only things that Shays has said about Iraq to the press happen to be the exact things, in the exact order that Farrell is saying on TV? Wiki is an encyclopedia: we don't parrot campaign ads. We report the issue neutrally, and comprehensively, without selective quoting resulting in "spin". We need to fix this: Wiki cannot be a copy of a TV campaign ad. Sandy 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if "in five years" Shays has said other things of note (which I'm sure he has), then Sandy should by all means post them to his WP article. I did create a "Views on Iraq" section, but by no means am I pretending it's comprehensive. This isn't a problem for wiki, this is a problem for two posters with obvious differences of POV. Again, I'm sorry we're debating this here, rather than in arbitration or better yet on the article's discussion page where I think it belongs.--Francisx 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's for protecting both articles? Or should we just block the warring parties util the election is over? Incidentally, Francisx, "some critics" is a weasel term. Name them. Better still, merge both articles to the election article because this is all specific to this year's campaign and is thus getting undue weight on the biographies. Guy 09:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For historical context, to see where these articles are likely headed, look at this beauty of an article: Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006.

(Joe Lieberman was the same after the August primaries: I cleaned it up last week.)

At least protect the candidate articles, so they aren't trashed as Lieberman was. (The copyvio/Farrell promo needs to be removed from Shays' article.) Warring parties? The article hasn't suffered much: I've been investing a lot of time on the talk page, just trying to hold down the BLP violations. The weasly "some critics" statement is sourced to the Democrat campaign website, which is partisan, and isn't a reliable source. I changed it; my change was reverted. And the fun hasn't even started: if it's anything like the August primaries, the anon POV and vandal edits will hit the articles hard a few weeks before the election. Sandy 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. If you actually read Chris Shays there is little evidence that the article has been trashed. On the contrary, uncontroversial NPOV information on the Congressman has been added. Sandy seems to be trying to wash several politicians' bios.

2. Despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, there is absolutely no copyvio here -- all quotations used are from independent media sources and are clearly fair use. The constant reverts and tags and appeals to admins are highly disruptive and have a chilling effect on WP.

3. As for historical context, I had absolutely nothing to do with the Connecticut Senate primary articles, and I think Sandy knows that. Chris Shays is not Joe Lieberman. The information Sandy is targeting at Chris Shays is sourced, NPOV and highly topical.--Francisx 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy is playing games.[65] This is not acceptable, especially weeks before an election. This user has changed the {cite} method and is citing the BLP to remove things that are sourced from the candiate's own webpage. While it is possible that the user is confused about policy in those two regards, that does not explain her/his other edits which I mentionedhere of removing a national headline. I have basically given up trying to engage that user who is WP:POINT. I don't think a temporary block should be ruled out. Arbusto 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction: as the diffs show, you inserted a direct quote and attributed it to Shays, when the quote you attributed to him was in fact a CNN headline, not words ever used by Shays at all. Reverted per BLP. You can't attribute words to Shays he never said as a direct quote by him. Perhaps you mistakenly thought CNN's headline were his words: they weren't. Sandy 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the optimal solution would be for an admin to revert all negative information introduced into any of these three articles between now and November 7th. Given that we're less than 30 days out from the election, any such editing ought to be considered WP:POINT violations by default. --Aaron 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely support that, although it depends entirely on your definition of "negative." I don't see how a section outlining Chris Shays' views on Iraq -- the specific grievance here -- constitutes a "negative" addition. As always, the insertion of POV material should be unacceptable. But the candidates' statements and actions are not only fair game, they're essential. The Farrell article especially needs work (it was only recently undeleted) and I don't think a general block on new information would help things.Francisx 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather that both the Shays and Farrell articles be overly positive than to have new edits that could be even potentially considered as containing negative POVs. Sure, all this stuff is fair game in general, but at the end of the day, we're an encyclopedia, not a news service. (In my dream world, all articles about incumbents and candidates would be locked down 60 days prior to an election. Truly important breaking news would always be an exception of course (e.g. Bob Ney, Harry Reid and Mark Foley), but run-of-the-mill campaigning would be out.) --Aaron 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Run of the mill campaign information belongs on the campaign page. As for locking down the articles, that might make sense if the articles were decent to begin with, but both Diane Farrell and Chris Shays were basically substance-less campaign-written stubs just a week ago. In many cases, lack of interest in candidates means that proper articles won't be written about politicians until after public interest in the campaign rises.Francisx 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Usage of images in signatures

WP:SIG is a guideline on Wikipedia as of now, and those who flaunt outrageous signatures with images in them can get away with it. I think it is time to set a precedent here and make is a policy on wikipedia so that usage of images on Wikipedia is discouraged. Alkivar (talk · contribs) (who is incidentally an administrator on en.wiki) has been flaunting an image in his signature since a long time. Reminders [66] to remove image by me and other users have been ignored by Alkivar and he conviniently chose to ignore them and clear his talk page for archiving [67] and he continues to have the image in his signature. I would like the community to adjudicate on this matter.

Reference– User talk:Alkivar

More about the problems that images cause can be read here — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know much about the server load question but I do note that when uploading images for articles last night, the image server was struggling. Signatures are an expression of users' individualism and we should resist tampering unless it's necessary, but I personally do not like images in signatures. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of many editors who still use images in their signatures. If they do, they should be reprehended and persuaded to change the signature to something more acceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. Do you mean reprimanded or apprehended? I'm picturing chasing Alkivar around with a big butterfly net... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reprehend v.t. - rebuke. (see reprehensible) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're making this a big deal, Nearly Headless Nick, as Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has already pointed out it is a guideline, not yet a policy. Maybe this does deserve discussion but not in the manner that you are approaching it with - threats to block him, posting on WP:AN/I, and just general aggresion and disrespect towards a fellow admin, whom I'm assuming, has done nothing else to you. If this is an issue, it should be discussed in much more peaceful terms. Please calm down.--Konst.able 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a big issue but then -Ril-'s confusing signature did end up going to the ArbCom. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that seems to have been a ~~~~ for a signature and then replaced by some abusive comments. Alkivar had an svg image (which is just a 2kb piece of XML code by the way) - I don't see how this warrants cold orders followed by threats of being blocked.--Konst.able 09:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check this too, which was posted by some user as an anon, probably by mistake and was removed from his talk page by Alkivar. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Konstable, please check this user's talk page carefully, and you will see the number of times, I (and other users) have asked this user to remove the image. Images in signature are a problem for Wikipedia, and this user has been blocked by an administrator for flaunting a confusing signature with image(s) in it. The fellow admin you are referring to does not understand Wikipedia and its processes and has assumed bad faith with me and perhaps other editors (check his user talk page). What I am proposing here is to ban usage of images in signatures, and persuading other users to change their signatures by removing the images. Perhaps you should see the acidulous language he has used to reply to me. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had posted the warning only as a last resort. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick, this seems like a classic WP:PERF issue... I tend to doubt that Alkivar's signature is really destroying the Wiki, but if it (and others) were having any significant impact at all the devs would deal with it. Trying to make policy on the basis of 'this is better for performance' has consistently caused nothing but aggravation and thus is itself strongly discouraged. As is repeatedly arguing a point and/or threatening users. Have you clocked the nanoseconds 'wasted' by Alkivar's signature image... and does that add up to more or less than the wasted time and aggravation being caused by your argument over it? --CBD 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support an outright ban on any images in signatures. It's entirely unnecessary and the drawbacks far outweigh the non-existent benefits. --Cyde Weys 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat off from the topic, what's with the "Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning...." banner? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

Slow, but persistent vandal

I'm not sure this belongs here.
Jpmorris3 has only 10 edits. Each of the 10 edits is vandalism of some sort. They are spread out over the past 3-4 weeks, but he hasn't vandalized enough in one shot to qualify for WP:AIV. Is there any kind of action that can be taken in situations like this, or should I just keep his contribution page bookmarked so I can check up on it every few days? I've placed a "last warning" on his talk page, but I'm not confident that my bark has any bite. --Onorem 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked him so it'll force him to either give up or explain himself. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My WikiVandals folder is growing far too fast. --Onorem 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Article about Gracenote Company -- company owner is "managing" article

The English Wikipedia article Gracenote is about the company that provides audio CD track information for computer applications.

The founder/owner of the Gracenote company, Steve Sherf is openly "maintaining" the article, with Talk comments like:

"Please stop reverting everything I add

This article is about Gracenote, and I am the founder. I know the details of its founding. I know the details of its products. I know the details of its legal history"

Some of his edits may be factually appropriate -- but this seems to be unacceptable behavior for a company to be using Wikipedia as a public relations outlet.

In generally the article seems to be experiencing a traumatic life -- an entire useful section I added was deleted without explanation (though seemingly not by Mr. Sherf).

Is there some parental supervision that can be applied here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.8.180 (talk • contribs)

I do not think its using it for a public relations outlet however if I had a company with an article here I wouldnt feel it right to leave in information I, as the owner, know is incorrect. If you look at some dif's [68] it seems there is criticism being emphasized that is of little importance and honestly original research. You can see a large dif [69] of a revert where some of the wording is being made more product friendly and some of the history changed. However its important to note that sections such as "Commercialization and controversy" are not showing a source for the controversy, or even if its legit. There is also a major issue where an incomplete legal history may be being used to smudge the name of the company, as the person in question Sherf has provided a complete legal history and the one being removed was limited in scope and did not expand further into the over ruling of a previous decision. You can see that in the section "Lawsuits" in regard to MusicMatch. --NuclearZer0 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Companies do not ever get to claim 'special ownership' over an article. --InShaneee 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said they did? --NuclearZer0 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Usually, I'd be on this guy like a ton of bricks, but the snippets above sound like he's frustrated that some factual edits are being reverted. I don't see a claim that he owns the article, if that's an issue, then I'd expect the poster to include that relevant data here. A quick glance at the article shows some room for improvement (in terms of PR-Speak), but unless there's clear evidence that the gentleman in question is trying to keep a wikefellow down, I don't see any admin intervention needed. Finally, and this is perhaps the real meat of the issue, I see very little attempt to resolve this dispute on the talk page. The Gracenote guy has said the above "hey, don't revert everything I do" and then there are two small responses but no back and forth conversation. There's no traffic on his user page either. Y'all are WAY far away from needing help from here, try and work things out together first. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Users Supreme Cmdr and Warhawk sockpuppeting/evading blocks

Lordkazan (talk · contribs) has reported that Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) and WarHawk (talk · contribs) may be sockpuppeting to evade blocks. Lordkazan was originally blocked for 3RR on Derek Smart, ([70], [71], and [72]). After looking at Supreme Cmdr's and Warhawk's edits, the edit summaries and the actual edits (even the reverts) are extremely similar, a little too similar (Supreme Cmdr: [73], Warhawk: [74]). Since Warhawk's account is a little too recently-created to be innocent (12 October 2006), it appears that Supreme Cmdr is using the Warhawk account to sockpuppet, while using his/her own account to evade the current block on the Warhawk account. I would recommend indef. blocking the Warhawk account for sockpuppetry before this gets out of hand and a Checkuser is needed. Shadow1 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the correct order of operations be to get the checkuser first, and indef block (if warranted) second? Nandesuka 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I find it a little more than suspect when a new user reverts to a blocked user's version. I'm going to go ahead and issue blocks. --InShaneee 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young article

I am working for the GA project and since it is logical to delist articles when they don't meet the standards, there are always users relisting them without making the appropriate changes and without complying with the renomination process. I need help to prevent that. They have even blocked the talk page on Sept 23, 2006 to prevent any change in GA status. Lincher 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Ozzwald35 and Boxrec.com

User ozzwald has breached WP:3RR on this page and refuses to follow WP:MOS , by not hiding comments on an artical and signing the artical page (Gnevin 16:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

The guy has just joined today and has been on the ramage since this morning - can someone put a 24 hour block on him and hope he calms down Beaumontproject 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated to another administrators, which I would have came here if I had known how to...here is the problem, which I tried to discuss a resoultion to, but Gnevin, and Beaumontproject (who just joined a couple days ago himself) both seem intent on having they're one-sided, bogus claim on the topic. I'm one of the many editors from boxrec, though I do not speak for Boxrec, and I am a member of several other boxing organizations as well and what I deleted should be deleted as it is the POV of only a small handful of people that are fantatics of John Duddy...the Criticism comment is completely irrelevant in describing boxrec as they formed from an internet flame war that a couple of these editors started over on the boxrec forum.

Anyway, below is what I sent to several other administrators:

If I am out of line by adding this I apologize as I am new and do not know how to work the site and I'm just doing what I can to be heard, but I apologize if this is poor etiquette. As to the issue that Beaumontproject speaks of...I have already sent two e-mails to wiki administrators several hours ago about the issue. Please do look into it though if you have power to do something about it.

Beaumontproject continues to post criticism that is complete nonsense that he bases on an argument that he and another pal had from an internet message board which they now have a grudge against, which anyone with any research knowledge knows that a flame war from an internet message board is not a valid source.

Another editor and myself have tried several times to explain to Beaumontproject that an argument from an internet message board is not a valid source yet they continue to ignore that.

Being that you know the difference can you enlighten Beaumontproject that an arguement, or anything from an internet message board is not a valid source...he will not listen to me, or another editor about it, but since he has seeked your help then maybe you can let him know what is and what isn't a valid source!

Now the rules of the site state that editors should discuss and try to come to an agreement, but Beaumontproject and Vintagekits are only interested in posting the bogus criticism claim that got them banned from another site instead of listening to what we tried to tell them...that an argument from an internet message board is not a valid source and has no business being presented as fact. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxrec.com which it is normal now as I deleted the criticism claim. Though I'm sure that we could probably use the stats for boxrec that is up on the Boxrec mediawiki page as it does what wiki does and describes the site...but it doesn't list any beef, which is what Beaumontproject wants to continue to post. As I said I sent two e-mails to wiki administrators several hours ago, but if you can do something a lot of people, including myself, would be grateful. Again, I apologize if I am contacting you in the wrong manner.

Lastly, Below is the resolution that I offered:

Hey...I have no problem with the Criticism, but if it is to stay up then so should the Comment about the Criticism comment only being the view of a couple of people and certainly not the view od all wikipedians...that's a clear way to resolve the issue. You want it up fine, but I want it to be clear that it is only the view of a couple of people...can you live with that, or is your grudge just too bad to have a opposing voice...after all, wiki stresses opposing views in an article! And Beaumontproject joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited.--Ozzwald35 16:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Ozzwald for 24 hours for continuing to add his 'warning' after numerous attempts to dissuade him. --InShaneee 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

History Files

I would appreciate it if you could delete a history file for me the information is listed below.

Potomac Senior High School

Here is the history file I would like removed.

(cur) (last) 13:51, 11 October 2006 205.174.125.54 (Talk) (→State Champions)

It has somethings in there that I do not like. If you remove that history file I would appreciate it. Thanks. John R G 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the revision. --InShaneee 17:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

a diff to help —12.72.73.61 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the 7th one down on the list of history files. John R G 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like pretty standard vandalism, I see no reason to actually remove it from the history. --InShaneee 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing tags from Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

A user keeps reverting a "sources" tag from Factions in the Republican Party (United States). The article contains no citations, with only a few books listed as "references." An easy question is what book supports what claim? This has been ongoing for a few days. Arbusto 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've put it up for AfD; it's almost entirely unsourced opinion. (Seems accurate enough, but this sort of thing is hard to get up to WP:V standards, and this article doesn't even try.) Regarding the tag, I changed it to the new {{moresources}} tag, which comes off a little less harsh while still making it clear you can't just have one source for an entire article. Maybe that one will stick. --Aaron 20:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the AfD after being alerted to recent page vandalism. There appears to be a content dispute over how sources should be listed, and some questionable reverting is going on. I'd still like to see better referencing, preferably section-by-section, but I'm going to give everyone a chance to work it out. --Aaron 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Satesclop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is engaging on a series of controversial reverts and page moves without any sort of previous discussion. He has previously admitted his level of English is not up to scratch for en.wiki. I tried to explain it to him in Spanish but to no avail. His actions are quite disruptive and he has failed to assume good faith insofar (i.e. accussing people reverting his edits of vandalism), used offensive language towards another wikipedian (User:Joanot), who I assume he has had clashes with in another language wikipedia (maybe Spanish or Catalan, not really sure). In any case, even if he raises what he thinks are valid points sometimes, the way he does it and his behaviour is utterly reprehensable. I would appreciate if someone can have a look at his contribution history, before the problem escalates into any sort of edit war. Regards, --Asterion^talk 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request 2nd opinion on User:Calgvla

I blocked this user yesterday for the 3RR violation reported on the noticeboard. He has a history of posting inflammatory comments to Armenia, Armenians, and their associated Talk pages, including proposals to cite Nazi literature to prove his point. The community has taken to simply removing his comments in many cases. His agenda seems to be to prove that Armenians should not be considered Europeans.

I opened a dialog with him hoping to help him understand that this agenda is incompatible with Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem much interested in that. He did, however, seem agreeable to be more civil in attempting to discuss his views and even to filing an RFC.

However, other editors of those articles brought to my attention that he has a sockpuppet, Caligvla (talk · contribs). I didn't block it because he didn't use it to evade his other block. He has recently started posting messages to editors' Talk pages though, requesting support of his issue. I have asked him to stop, and file an RFC like I suggested.

Anyway, anyone think this can be salvaged? Would someone here have just indef blocked both accounts? --Aguerriero (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would (of course I'm not an admin., consider the overwhelming majority of his edits trolling and am in an editing dispute with him, so I'm not expecting anyone to take me too seriously on this issue).--Tekleni 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I would also like to point out some of his other edits which included blaming Armenians for "80% of all crime in Glendale", California along with an "outbreak of savage murders". I would also like to mention that Aguerriero is not the only one who assumed good faith and tried to reason with the above user to no avail, Dbachmann and Khoikhoi tried to reason with him without any results as well.--Eupator 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet on Talk:Hilda Toledano

Justiceiro (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of M.deSousa (talk · contribs), essentially a SPA devoted to promoting the supposed claims of Hilda Toledano and her "successor", Dom Rosario Poidimani, to the throne of Portugal. M.deSousa has been blocked several times for edit warring over that article, and has a long on- and off-wiki history of advocacy around this issue. (I understand him to be a friend and associate of Dom Rosario.) The new account has not done anything sanctionable (other than probably being a sockpuppet), but given the history of the article, I don't expect that to be the case for long. Choess 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment, defamation, libel and slander by user Richardjames444

Entire comment can be found here (it was too lengthy). El_C 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked this guy to stop referring to my name, project name in any regard, and have yet again edited his comments that refer specifically to me. I have the right create on my user page in a form of computer/new media art, to comment in whatever language or form I feel free to express in. [...] I have repeatedly attempted to expunge previous username and posts, have requested assistence several times in doing so for the above reasons. Please honor this request and block Richard James from his harassing behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentdion (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, this user is simply angry about her username being used, as it is apparently her real name. I see no 'harrassment' on Richard's part (although he has been incivil in a few cases), but merely an attempt to prevent the confusing removal of the username from talk pages. Frankly, the only harrassment I can see is on Lauren's part, which seems to skirt WP:NLT more than once. I've issued her a warning about legal threats and personal attacks seen above, though I have a feeling it won't be enough. --InShaneee 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, User:Laurentdion = User:Yakusudo. User only wants to be known as User:Yakusudo, but continues to edit while logged in as User:Laurentdion. I'm not an expert, but I think the second you create an account with your real name as your username, you pretty much cease to be anonymous. I don't know if there is any way to delete the username, but with the cat out of the bag, as it were, would it do any good? --Kbdank71 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, usernames can't be deleted. --InShaneee 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Urg, I've now blocked her for 24 hours. Her every edit has been along the lines of the above (ie, wild rants demanding that everyone who refers to her username is committing 'libel'). We'll see if it does any good. --InShaneee 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's a him, not a her. Laurent is a chap's name, and in any case it seems to be his surname. It might also be worth mentioning to him that stomping around changing people's talk archives and so on doesn't delete any of the history, and just draws attention to the stuff you're trying (futilely) to consign to oblivion. --ajn (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential AFD sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)

There appears to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. I ran whois checks on two of the IPs (84.77.74.235 (talk · contribs) and 84.77.93.205 (talk · contribs)), and they're both based on the same ISP (fairly obvious, but I had to doublecheck). These anons are also posing as nonexistent users, and all of them are trying to keep the article, which has been deleted at least six times under various titles. There are also a few votes from brand new users (with no other edits). Would a RFCU be appropriate here? --Coredesat 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the AFD, but it's very rare that two IPs belonging to the same /16 range are not from the same ISP. ~crazytales56297 O rly? 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I figured it was worth doublechecking anyway, in the event one or both were proxies. --Coredesat 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, easy enough to spot; none of em bother to put anything on their userpages. El_C 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam Links by a user

User:Photopro23 and now under the anon IP of User:68.34.71.185 has been spamming Nikon and the Lego Mind storm page with spam links to his website. These links are his only edits to Wikipedia. PPGMD 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've issued both spam warnings, since it appears no one bothered to try to communicate with either prior to this. --InShaneee 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Haisch 3rr matter

Just dropping a note here that a 3rr report was filed for a user removing sourced information from this article. I believe this article has been previously reported by User:Haisch to the Foundation as he is the subject of the piece, and involved OTRS (sp?). Thanks. · XP · 21:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)