Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Thewolfstar

I blocked Thewolfstar for 24 hours for this, one in a long line of insults (mostly to Bishonen, although others have been attacked as well.) Block was requested to be lifted, I denied, and now Thewolfstar has posted some less-than-friendly comments ("you nasty socialist-nazi admins and editors are making a real mistake. This is not a threat. This a statement of fact.") on her user talk page. I invite other admins and editors to take a quick look at her edit history and talk page. It has been suggested that she needs mentoring, not blocking. My inclination is to extend the block for further personal attacks, but as one of the "nasty socialist-nazi admins" I might be considered biased. I am not recusing myself from further action, but I do invite examination, comment, and if applicable, constructive criticism and/or input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Would support extending block. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:41 UTC (2006-04-26)

Definitely not a nasty socialist-nazi, I would also agree with a bit longer block. Although, blocks are not meant to be punitive, but rather to prevent damage. So the real question is, what would be the reason for the block? Is Thewolfstar likely to continue his attacks? I'd say let this 24 hours go, and if he continues, slam him hard. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Had an encounter just yesterday with the wolfstar and thought it ended well enough...but why pick a fight with Bishonen? I support the block.--MONGO 02:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur, blocks are not meant to be punative, however often they are used as a "cooling off" or "time-out" period, and she shows no signs of cooling off. Does anyone feel mentoring would be effective? KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the user is tremendously not nice. At the very best, this is a person who has been nothing but "thecabalisagainstme" sort. The only thing is that we probably need to be doing RfAR, as NPA is not blocking policy. (N.b. the user vandalized my page with a paranoid screed, as well, and this when I had never interacted with her/him before.) Geogre 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BP#Disruption: "excessive personal attacks" are specifically mentioned. I feel this user's level of personal attacks falls well within the "excessive" criteria. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<shrug> I'm far more conservative about it and worry more and more about blocks coming from our discretion. Again, I totally agree that this person is a pest and almost certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I even share the suspicions that this is a reincarnation of a blocked user. I just think we should, at the very least, be filing RfAR's at the same time that we do these things. If ArbCom is overworked, we need to address that issue separately. (Yeah, I'm a PitA idealist on these things, I know.) Geogre 13:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Idealism certainly has its place. (So do PitAs.) IMHO, either Thewolfstar will learn to apply civility in interactions with other editors, in which case, ipso facto, there is no problem, or she does not, in which case we can certainly try the usual steps in dispute resolution, if there is any support for that idea at that time. Support may be overwhelmingly for other measures, if she continues. If you have a specific banned user in mind, ipcheck might not be a bad idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a blatant personal attack from Thewolfstar against Bishonen (who he called Bitchownen), also he called smoeone else a nasty Nazi Fuck. [1] ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean [2] I think. Including "If they ban me and I can't get through to Jimbo I'm going to go to the media. I'll write an article about this place. I have some connections all over the place through my website. I'm going to blast this place right open to the world if they don't cut the crap....Go ahead you nasty nazi fucks I dare you. Ban me now." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that among the other worrisome comments, this user has also stated that the authors of an RfC, who wolfstar feels were 'destroying wikipedia', 'ought to be shot' [3]. I urge careful interaction with this user, whatever path the admins decide. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this NOW. This has every indication of getting worse. Look how he's treating his "mentor". ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The only good thing about this is that if he (or "she") actually owns a website, then it will be much easier to watch out for block evasions and investigate. The pattern of 1) saying that "socialism" is destroying the world, 2) everyone who disagrees with him (or "her") is a socialist, 3) asserting that socialists are out to suppress the truth (for which there is a small group of defenders) is strangely familiar to me. It's somewhat irrelevant, though, whether this is a reincarnation or a friend: the account really seems incapable of constructive work, as the political and paranoid get in the way of everything else. ArbCom is pretty much the only way forward, though. Geogre 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents; I've tried to be a friend to Wolfstar since dropping her a line after seeing her name on a notice at the Esperanza Alert page. She's been quite friendly to me, but then, I've never been involved in any of the edit conflicts that she's been in as of late. Call it optimism, but I have hope that she'll eventually work her way into comfortable editing. Nonetheless, while I am fine playing the role of a friend and advocate, I don't really want to take sides either, especially when editors who I trust have been involved and feel that her conduct has been out of line. I'd just like to ask, as a favor, for a little extra patience and mercy on her behalf — not to be confused with tolerating rule violations, which should be dealt with promptly — and thank y'all for that which you've shown already. I appreciate the work you all have done. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that's a reason I've wanted consideration by ArbCom. I'm afraid of users, even those like Wolfstar, thinking that their politics are why they're getting blocked. Obviously that wouldn't be the case here. It's this person's inability to deal with any disagreement without resorting to rage that's at stake. Users like that, regardless of contributions, aren't cut out for GFDL websites. They need ownership of edits and control over their own words, as the battle of competing claims seems to hit them in a psychological weak spot. I didn't come here to say that, though. I wanted merely to point out that Wolfstar has posted on Jimbo Wales's talk page and tried to explain his or her point of view there. Geogre 12:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually reconsidered my thoughts on this: Please don't take this as an insult, or having any negative connotations, but it appears that Thewolfstar is suffering from some sort of mental illness that causes her paranoia (everyone is out to get me), delusions of grandeur (comparison of treatment here to nazi prison camps), and rage against other users.

And therein lies the problem. I don't think it's Thewolfstar's intent nor fault that she's acting like this. From accounts of Merecat and Tijuana Brass, it appears that Thewolfstar, when stable, can be a good normal editor. The problem is, when something she contributes gets edited out for some reason, she's unable to see it rationally as the wikipedia system at work: in her mind it's truly an attack against her, censorship, and the breeding grounds for a socialist dictatorship. I don't know what to do about that. Obviously the personal attacks and such need to stop. But, blocking, and harsh words from the admins will only make matters worse in this case. I'm really beginning to fear that there are only two options: permanently blocking her from wikipedia, or ignoring the entire situation. Neither one of them appeals to me in the slightest, but my simple mind isn't coming up with anything else. I think Thewolfstar needs help, both on and off wikipedia. I very much admire Merecat for volunteering to provide it here, especially in the face of so much flak, that's an outstanding job. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SWATjester, it's not a question of "fault" or assigning blame. Blaming the user is quite irrelevant, but Wikipedia is not therapy. What is her effect on the encyclopedia? There's no need to go any long way round via other people's "accounts" to see that, as Thewolfstar's own contributions are only a mouseclick away. Have you tried reviewing them, looking for good normal edits, or any edits acceptable in an encyclopedia? Good luck. Or are you saying that even though she's never acted like "a good normal editor" on Wikipedia, Merecat and Tijuana Brass possess information that she might do so? Please clarify. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I reviewed all of Thewolfstar's contribs a couple days ago. I think I can count on 1-hand the ones that weren't somehow related to personal attacks, incivility etc. What I'm saying, is that I'm looking at WHY thewolfstar is acting this way, and I keep coming to the conclusion that she can't help it. Raging troll users don't go 180 bipolar between calmly talking with someone, and rampaging against the system. What I'm saying is, I think that Thewolfstar started out not knowing about wikipedia policy. She then makes some edits that earn her a warning. Boom. That triggers it. At this point, the irrationality kicks in, and she flips out. My point is that I don't think the flipping out was a conscious decision to do so: I think she fully and completely believes that there is a cabal out to get her, censor her, and other conspiracies. Did you look at that external site? Just judging from that, it looks like she probably thinks the government is out to get her. So she misconstrues the warnings she gets, takes the wrong actions and starts flaming/personal attacks, gets more warnings, and freaks out more. It just starts a vicious cycle. Now, what I meant with my comments above, is that I don't see the solution. You're asolutely right, nobody needs to be assigned blame here, but something does need to be done to prevent any nuclear explosions coming out in the future. So what is that going to be? Continued mentoring? Call me a pessimist, but I don't think it would work. Continued Blocking? I don't think that addresses the problem, and would be overly heavy handed. I know that I have no power to do anything, communities decision, etc. etc. I'm just saying that I've been thinking about it all day, and I just don't see any solution that both stops the personal attacks, and doesn't drive away a potentially good editor. Nobody should have to put up with the crap that Thewolfstar is giving you Bish, I'll be the first one to defend you as a top notch editor and a first rate admin. But flat out banning Thewolfstar, when it appears that she's trying to contribute, and being hampered by internal forces beyond her control (her own paranoia)...that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I could be totally wrong: Thewolfstar could be perfectly fine and just a troll. But if you look at it as objectively as you can, does it seem to you a little bit like she's not in control of her own mental state? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant please clarify the bit I commented on, "From accounts of Merecat and Tijuana Brass, it appears that Thewolfstar, when stable, can be a good normal editor." I don't understand why you think so. Bishonen | talk 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Swat, while I agree with some of what you're saying, I don't think that Wolfstar has a mental problem. Having spent my undergrad years as a political science major, I got to know a number of people who were pretty zealous about their political ideologies. Wolfstar is one of those folks, I think — very passionate about what she believes. When that was combined with a bad start at Wikipedia, and an unawareness of policies, it turned ugly. That's not to say that there's ever an excuse for personal attacks, etc., but I can see a new user mistaking Wikipedia for something more akin to a blog or message board, where that kind of thing is more commonplace. Bish and Geogre are right in saying that her recent edits have been entirely devoted to user talks, but there's always two parties to a conflict, and perhaps continuing to berate her (combined with some honest mistakes in unblocking her) isn't helping much. But, with so many users monitoring her by now, I don't see much harm that could be done in offering her another shot to focus on articles, rather than her talk page, to see how it goes. If it turns bad again, I agree with Geogre, GFDL may not be her bag. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Paranoid. Delusional. Abusive. Threats. Legal Threats. The thing that blows my mind the most about wikipedians is how long they deliberate over the obvious. "Maggie" is a SHE. We should add; possibly sciztophrenic, and, probably not susceptible to "mentoring."

Request for review of "clerk" actions

Clerk notes This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion [21] [22]. If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Wikipedia policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• 23:17, 25 April Brenneman changes section header
• 23:52, 25 April Tony reverts "pending discussion"
  • brenneman's talk - 23:54, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration)
  • brenneman's talk - 00:04, 26 April 2006 Aaron Brenneman (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - reply + provide link)
• 03:49, 26 April Brenneman creates discusion thread
  • brenneman's talk - 03:52, 26 April 2006 Aaron Brenneman (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - I'd ask you not to revert without discussion again.)
• 03:53, 26 April Brenneman re-reverts and points to discussion thread in edit summary
• 04:13, 26 April Tony Sidaway blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Mucking about with clerk notes)
• 04:13, 26 April Phil Sandifer blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Altering other people's sections on RFAr)
• 06:09, 26 April Tony re-reverts section header to his version
• 06:53, 26 April Tony's first edit to RfArb talk

The above seems to me to be wrong in a number of ways. Clerk's powers are to be strictly limited, and the section in question is clear editorialising, not summarising. Reversions without discussion are to be avoided, and I'll cop my licks for the second revert of mine. However, use of blocking to gain advantage in content disputes are off the map, right? I'll note to that I received no warnings and that both of these users have some slight history with me. I don't accept that "clerks" have been given the level of authority that they appear to think that they have, and even if they have than it was not applied properly here. - brenneman^{L} 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez...why not ask Tony before you made the change...if you thought he was biased in the case, can you show a link in which you stated so before you altered the headings and then reverted back over him? Why not see if you can become a clerk too. It's hard to see changing a subheading title as a content dispute but not so hard to see it as edit warring somewhat. The block by Tony was a bit reactionary...kind of looks like something I might do. Phil blocked you for a longer stint and I am surprised others unblocked you. Well, you're unblocked now, so it's over...I hope.--MONGO 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reproduced the section in question. It's not a question of "bias" it's that this isn't even remotely within the auspice of the clerk's position. This is an opinon that's being given extra weight by having the heading "Clerk Notes." If the clerk's are now going to be able to officially recomend rejection of cases, I'm sure that the community would like to have a say in that.
brenneman^{L} 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also interleaved (without links, sorry) the interaction on my talk page. Tony reverted "pending discussion" but didn't seem to keen to actually have one. Please compare the speed with which I was reverted and blocked, and ask yourself how long you would wait to hear back from the other person before undoing the revert. - brenneman^{L} 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait 37 seconds...I think there is an interpretation disagreement. Perhaps Tony hsould have not clerked that case, but I didn't notice a lot of POV as far as his work there...I can check it again. I'm not beating you up...I think the block was reactionary, but seems everyone was a bit off on this one. Tony was just doing his job(?) and perhaps saw your alterations as disruptive...he shouldn't have blocked you...--MONGO 07:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will discuss this matter. The blocking has already been briefly discussed. We do have Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on our watch lists and have some awareness of the personal interactions involved. Personally, I am not happy with the "Clerk's comments" section, but would rather Aaron had waited and let us deal with it. But perhaps it would not have come into focus so sharply had this incident not occurred. The request of Rgulerdem has been difficult to decide on for me, so perhaps Tony's note was helpful. Bottom line, it is not action which is required, but consideration of the questions raised, by Rgulerdem, by Tony, and by Aaron. Fred Bauder 08:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Examine my comments above, as a clerk. I strictly examine the question of the provenance of the block (it was community-imposed, not an arbitration remedy) and the question of whether there was any substantive dispute that would be suitable for arbitration (I found no evidence of any).

Now examine this, which I wrote on my own behalf, as an editor, in response to a mentorship and unblocking proposal made on behalf of rgulerdem:

This seems like a responsible proposal. I don't agree that he should serve out a block; if he's willing to abide by the conditions then there is no reason to keep him blocked.

I did not block until Aaron Brenneman began edit warring over the WP:RFAR page. The duration of the block was three hours and I believe it was a sensible thing to do in view of Aaron's impetuous actions and clear unwillingness to wait for a response; the RFAR page is bad enough without people going around changing one another's edits, much less those of clerks.

By coincidence, Phil Sandifer, another clerk with whom I was not in contact, also blocked Aaron Brenneman at exactly the same time and with the same purpose, but for twenty-four hours. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's a coincidence at all. Tony and Phil have been linked together in several discussions of the inappropriate expansion of clerking powers, and it would not be surprising at all to see them take the same stance toward someone who questions a specific instance of inappropriate action. Further, I have been on record, several places, and remain unswayed in the opinion that clerks should have no summary actions, must not be imposed, and must, in all cases, be people who have no history of involvement in a case. I also objected to clerks being volunteers accepted simply on the basis of ArbCom not being able to think of anything against them, in the dark. Finally, on what would be an unrelated matter but for what has just occurred, I've been warning for a while, Cassandra-like, that countenancing "community blocks" and unilateral blocks with a simple "I did it" on WP:AN is begging for a wheel war. The pedophilia wheel war could not have existed if we had not silently allowed non-ArbCom blocks to go and go and go. Not only should not this particular person have blocked Aaron, ever and under any circumstances, but neither should clerks or "community spokesmen" other than the community-approved board have been involved in blocking. Frankly, blocking of a personal nemesis is right at an RfAR offense by itself. Geogre 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your conspiracy mongering is as wrong as it is offensive. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Geogre is simply stating that you and Tony have similar opinions on the role of clerks and that it's hardly unexpected that the two of you would take the same view in the same circumstances. You seem to be the first one to mention a conspiracy. Zocky | picture popups 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Many editors (not just the trolls, either) were unhappy about the creation of clerks, and saw it as a case of rejected arbitrators thumbing their noses at other editors. All I can say is, cases like this do not help reduce that perception. If we must have clerks, can we at least get a handle on what they do or don't do? Friday (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony's actions here were straight wrong. Clerks have the power to summarize submitted evidence, not to act as an official investigatory agents during a request. If Tony wants to investigate claims during that stage -- anybody can, of course -- let him do so under his own name. One supposes the arbitrators will have some vague familiarity with who "Tony Sidaway" is anyway. The blocks were just abusive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me first state that Tony Sidaway and I have had several disagreements about his aggressive style. Having given full disclosure on that, let me add my total disapproval of his handling of this affair. He has no standing to do anything of this nature in arbcom cases, and his repeated edit warring in order to insert his personal opinion is entirely inappropriate, as was the block, since blocking someone you are in disagreement with is strongly frowned on by the community, whom Tony always claims to have full backing from. It's time to reconsider Tony's admin authority. But then, it's far past time to have done so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that criticism wasn't applied to Matt Crypto's repeated blocking of Deeceevoice, which apparently should be judged separately and unequally. Monicasdude 19:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Matt Crypto had repeatedly blocked Deeceevoice, but, even though it would be an appropriate block due to her repeated incivility, Matt Crypto should not have been the one to do so. And note that I haven't blocked her either, despite our disagreements and her (and your) repeated insinuations that I'm a racist. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Deeceevoice that seven other admins have seen fit to block her over time due to her lack of civility. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the page you cite shows nothing of the sort. It shows six other admins imposing blocks, for a variety of reasons -- with two of those admins' blocks removed as policy violations, and a third user ending up de-adminned for misbehavior. Adding Crypto in, and the real numbers say that the majority of admins who imposed blocks on her do so in violation of policy. Some of us draw obvious inferences. And you knew perfectly well about the Crypto situation, you were actively involved in the discussion at deletion review where he acknowledged it. Just another inconvenient fact swept under the rug? Monicasdude 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are red herrings, folks. Let's stay focused: clerks with expanding powers, Tony Sidaway blocking a user with whom he has had longstanding disagreements, Tony explicitly saying that the blocks were from "the community" when they were personal. Other issues should be addressed under a separate cover, and let's not argue by analogy. The clerking issue is bigger than one inappropriate action, but this inappropriate action is a good indication of the problems with clerking. Geogre 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

um... the red boxed text Tony wrote strikes me as an accurate description of the state of affairs. I've seen talk about community blocks before; someone put on an indefinite block, it was reported on ANI, and no other admin chose to challenge/defend/modify it. That's shunning, in my view, and the community (those admins there at the time and those that became aware of it later) chose to let it stand. It still stands to my knowledge, no admin has reversed it.

The beef here in my view is whether what was accurately reported was an official statement or not. And that's a mighty fine grain of sand to tussle over. Aaron should have known better than to thrash around on it, and Tony and Phil should have known better than to block Aaron over changing section headers!!! I've pleaded with Aaron and Tony on their talk pages before to stay away from each other, and I did it again earlier in this incident. They knew better before and they know better this time. My advice is to drop the whole thing and never ever interact with each other again. If ArbComm wants to clarify what parameters official statements have, that would be some good come of this, instruction creep or not, but I can't see anything else good coming of it. I'd love to see this go no further. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that the lack of anyone else overturning a block is an indication of assent nor "the community." First, that salmon colored banner is dissuasive. Second, folks who aren't scared by pink border probably know the personalities involved and don't want to enter into a grand royale battle. Third, those who aren't afraid of a war of attrition with the personalities involved might still not wish to fight over this ground. In other words, the fact that no one was willing to join in the kind of battle necessary to have any hope of headway against "I am a clerk, and I speak for All" is not really a sign that the community agreed with the clerk. This is even assuming that the issue was actually read, the diffs clicked, and people aware of the situation. I agree, of course, that Tony and Aaron and Phil are in frequent conflict, but I generally see Aaron working on defining policy and then getting jumped by unilateralism from the other two. Perhaps I'm biased and jaundiced at this point, though. Whatever flaws I might have, I'm pretty consistent in being against unilateralism. Geogre 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to advise someone never to interact with a member of WP administration if they're active at these levels. In particular Tony and other clerks, who seem to be everywhere.

I think both sides should take a breather (mutual assured frustration and incivility), but the question of what and where Clerk's powers are needs to get answered. It may not be wrong to allow them to expand, but if they're going to expand then they need to be expanded, and any arguments about it hashed out, and whether there's unanimous agreement or not it needs to become a stated policy. Otherwise, like it or not, it is two admins without evident special powers having an edit conflict over something and one just blocking the other to end it.

The only thing that would incline me to object to giving those powers to Tony is that he blocked first and asked whether his power covered it later in the situation, and Aaron isn't exactly an unknown vandal whose good faith is in question.

On principle, it sounds like a reasonable thing, but it should be discussed first. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I'm a known vandal. ^_^
brenneman^{L} 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might be a known vandal, but if it's any consolation, your good faith (or lack thereof) is not in doubt. ^_^ ... OK, more seriously, what I was trying to get at here is that at the time that Tony wrote what he wrote, it struck me as being a true statement of facts... the user had been blocked for quite a while, no one had unblocked, it was a community shunning. Since then, things have changed. Heck, YOU unblocked him after leading a discussion about it. But at the time, it was factual, at least in my view. I'm in the camp that doesn't think it ought to have been an official statement and would have liked to see it with an ordinary heading and not in pink. And I'm in the camp that thinks Tony and Phil overreacted a bit. But geez, Brenny, why didn't you ask someone else to change it for you? I would have, happily. They know better. You know better. That's my point. I'll repeat myself (because that's what I do!) I would love to see this go no further. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To focus on the immediate situation, edit warring on important process pages like this really isn't on, and Aaron's impetuous actions were disruptive and he was fully aware of what he was doing. That he was blocked simultaneously by not one but two clerks acting independently should tell him something about the inappropriateness of his behavior. That he has in the past engaged in sock puppetry and vandalism against me, which he avoided admitting for several days in the course of which he sought to evade responsibility by accusing David Gerard of serious misconduct, in no way limits my own scope of action with respect to his own misconduct, and he should be aware of that.

There is certainly a need for discussion of the role of clerks. There is no question of their having, or needing, special powers--they're just editors like anyone else and their role requires no powers other than the ability to edit. But what clerks should write, and where, is a matter for the arbitration committee to decide in consultation with the wider community. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought that Tony's comment was wholly appropriate, demonstrating exactly how having extra pairs of eyes in the form of the Clerks benefits the Committee, and that Aaron's alter-someone-else's-comment-first-talk-later approach is wholly reprehensible; OTOH, although I can see the utility and sense in keeping sysops from straying into edit-warring, I think that Tony should not have blocked Aaron himself, as he was, indeed, involved, both in this individual case, but also in a more general wiki-encompassing disagreement with Aaron, as I'm sure we're all aware.

James F. (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is too long for my browser

Just to be utterly pellucid, all I'd like to see is this not to happen again.

• The whole initial statement probably could have been re-phrases as a "summary" by saying something like "two adminstrators have stated blah blah blah" but then would have had to have been followed by "however other adminstrators felt blah blah." Barring that, if the clerk's are to be allowed broad interprative powers I'd like to hear it from ArbCom. This was tantamount to a declaration of "Reject! So sayeth the clerks, so sayeth the flock."
• Tony's implied that he's allowed to block in this manner as a clerk, which would require at lest an amendment to blocking policy, and the block as applied would require a massive overhaul to existing policy. (No waring, involved parties, etc.) Again, I'd want to hear from the ArbCom that this is what they've got in mind.

Getting blocked did piss me off something shocking, no word of a lie there. But for a couple of hours I could only edit my talk page? Big deal, I'll live. So while I'd dearly like the underlying issue to be addressed as openly and widely as possible, for me personally it's history already. (Although I'm still curious about my "tawdry" actions.) The entire clerk's "office" was meant to have some sort of review in early march, did that ever happen? brenneman^{L} 06:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you think that we can only have an implied policy if we explicitly spell it out? I'm confused.

James F. (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Only an implied policy? What the heck are you talking about? Where is it implied? Who implied it? Who failed to infer it? That's an obviously absurd statement, James. It is precisely this kind of thing that is destructive, useless, and the heart of "cabal" fears. No, James, you don't get to assume that everyone knows that power gets to expand at the will and whim of a few on ArbCom. This is absolutely out. There is no Star Chamber. There is no super admin. Members of ArbCom have no inherent power, and they would do well to remember that power rests in the ArbCom, not in its members. They don't get to "assume" that they can give up their powers (which they don't have personally anyway). They don't get to empower their friends without consent from the community. If they continue to act in this manner, they encourage every admin with disagreements to simply wheel war (as Tony has done and as Phil has done), as each admin has as much inherent power and dignity as the members of ArbCom. If ArbCom doesn't meet, doesn't spell it out, doesn't agree, and doesn't announce, then there is no ruling. It is only when the corporate body assents and speaks that there is any power adherent, for the power was not in the person, but in the body. I'm shocked at the misunderstanding betrayed by your question. Geogre 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite.

I think you need to re-read "Wikipedia is not a democracy" et al.. We wield Jimbo's supreme power at his (and, formally, the Board's) pleasure, limited only by his guidance and our opinions, and act through the prism of common sense, not some formalised system as you strongly suggest. We are not official a body corporate. I'm utterly amazed that someone of your standing and for whom such respect is due would move to wikilawyer so. I'm assuming that you didn't mean it in quite this way, though. :-) Obviously we don't expect people to kow-tow and consider our every phrase pearls of wisdom imbued with divine judgement and exquisite perfection, but they should consider our individual opinions and carefully-considered statements to be (as they almost always are) strongly indicative of the general opinion and mood of the Committee.

As for encouraging normal sysops to wheel war, well, they're welcome to. We will desysop them all, as necessary - doing so to every single one, and starting from sratch, would be bad, but it is not an utterly impossible or unimaginable activity. We're here to build an encyclopædia, not "have fun" or build an "equitable society" for everyone to play with in a "fair" manner. This is the real world, and the real world isn't fair, isn't equitable, and doesn't defer to idealism over the pressures of reality. It's far more important to have the right result than the "right" process.

If you want to try to build a utopian society, I hear that mySpace has some room available (people who understand the sarcastic sub-text in suggesting an attempt to build the unobtainable get bonus points :-)).

James F. (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What a beautifully disingenuous use of "apparently" woven into the "Jimbo trusts us" argument. The "wikilawyer" charge is linguistically and logically null, as it is invoked whenever a person gets caught acting outside of policy and practice. You cannot argue, on the one hand, that this is common practice that ArbCom gets added powers to their persons and at the same time that it is never stated and must not be stated. You wave the "wikilawyer" complaint and combine that with the "not a democracy" to try to excuse not only abuse but the claim that you need not tell people what the rules are for them to be rules, that you need not have the community agree in order to demand that the community comply. That you would further gleefully claim that you will "desysop" people, basically saying with George Bush "Bring it on," is a simply staggering instance of bad behavior, bad attitude, and breach of trust. Since you argue that Jimbo's trust of you (unstated, and we must not ask to see it written) imbues you personally with powers above the powers of administrators, you therefore must question whether I am a person to whom there is trust and respect due. I ask for none. I ask for logic, for reason, for good will, and for good practices, and I use words rather than the mystical touch of a king or the mysterious essence. If I speak truly and can defend my positions, then respect will follow. You seem to reverse this and say that, because you are on ArbCom, your words must be respected. That is a very sad sight to see. Geogre 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just still not seeing anywhere Tony implies he was allowed to make this block because he's a clerk. Call me naive, but I'm going with the statements above that it was simply over edit warring on RFAr. Yes, he shouldn't have made the block because it was edit warring over his own statement. And yes, unless 1RR got approved somewhere I didn't see, there isn't a clearly defined process for what happened. But everyone is squabbling about motives, and it's just fanning the flames. So now Aaron feels Tony is trying to assume more power than he's actually got, and Tony's feels Aaron's deliberatly trying to provoke him...look back at some of the RFAr cases you both have worked on before, guys, you've been here before.

I'm gonna echo Lar here and say, please, let's all drop it. If Clerk's powers really concern you, let's hash it out on the Clerks page. As for Aaron and Tony, I think it's just best if y'all try to stay as far away from each other's edits as possible. --InkSplotch^(talk) 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear about one thing: nobody likes the clerk summaries, except for possibily a few arbitrators somewhere. But they should'nt count. Let's suspend it immediately under some pretext or another and let consensus prevail. My experience with the clerking, aside from opposing it having summary functions during its questionable creation, has been wholly negative, but let's not talk about that. Down with clerk summaries! El_C 23:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not taking any crap from people who want to make clerking harder" [4]

• I'd say this, combined with zero evidence of Tony thinking that there was any problem with this block, speaks to "Tony imp[ying] he was allowed to make this block because he's a clerk." There is nothing in blocking policy that suggests this wa a valid block and several things that explicitly say it wasn't — unless clerks get exemption. I also find it simultaneously amusing and horrifiying to hear that "edit warring" warring is now expanded to include a single revert after four hours "pending discussion."
• I also find User:Jdforrester's responses here to be breathtaking. "Tony should not have blocked Aaron himself" makes it clear he supports the block. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'd love to see him suggest that blocking policy be expanded in this manner. I'll cop his "reprehensible" on my changing of a section heading (not a comment) as simple intellectual laziness, and let it go.
• In that vein, however, I'd suggest that if James needed Tony's summary in this case, he should probably hand in his ArbCom badge. Given that not only the facts were clearly and succinctly spelled out and but that at the time the section header was changed Dmcdevit had already suggested this go back to ANI, what exactly was it that we needed a clerk for again? I'm sure that ArbCom are overworked, and that the word smog on most cases is horrific. But if they are so busy that they can't be bothered to read the under one thousand words that were there in this request and instead look over the précis and say "good enough" than we have bigger problems than a measly three hour block of a known agitator.

brenneman^{L} 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Long live the editors' proletariat revolution! Georgewilliamherbert 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that anyone can prepare a summary of an ArbCom case. The clerks are not privileged in that regard. Whether the clerks should log their summaries under a "clerk" header or under their own name is debatable. But everyone is invited to particiapte in arbitraiton workshops. -Will Beback 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I always assumed that doing so would be rude to the Arbitrators and process, and that normal editors or admins should stay mostly out in the comments areas and /workshop and /evidence (and talk pages). Is that view universally agreed among the arbitrators and clerks? Could it lead to abuse and disruption of the process (not just what happened here, but actual serious disruption...)? Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can submit evidence in the evidence page and comment in the workshop. While in practise the involved parties tend to make most of the running, submissions from uninvolved parties are always useful and are to be encouraged. Comments on the talk pages are also useful in raising wider community concerns about the arbitration process. Arbitrators do read these comments and respond. My experience of observing and working with arbitrators over a period of some fifteen months is that they care passionately about Wikipedia and want to reach the best possible decision. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right; the question is, are normal editors/admins supposed to do summaries, as Will suggests... and you didn't actually answer. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Um, no, El_C!!! I know you like to play the revolutionary and all but no. I think clerking is TERRIFICALLY useful. I think clerks summaries are useful. I don't want to see clerking come crashing down like a house of cards. I just don't think Tony should have been the person to block Aaron in this case. Too personally involved. If Aaron had been futzing with someone else's summary, then MAYBE. But probably not even then. Ditto Phil. Get someone else to do it. We have 800+ admins after all. If Tony could not convince an uninvolved admin (and sorry.. Phil is not "uninvolved" at this point) to do it, it wasn't the right thing to do. CERTAINTLY not worth wrecking clerking over. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• You again, the clerk lackey! :D If ever I start sounding like a wikirevolutionary, please just shoot me and put me out of my misery. El_C 19:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to take issue with this idea that anyone who belongs to the ever-expanding circle of people who have ever had problems with Aaron's behavior must be forever counted as being "involved" with him in some way. We don't in general apply such criteria to matters like this. So while it is arguable that I was in some way "involved" with Aaron Brenneman in the immediate case (because he was aggressively editing my clerk summary) and therefore should not have blocked him for three hours, I think the idea that Phil Sandifer was in any way involved is completely mistaken. There was no discussion between myself and Phil, we blocked simultaneously. The person we blocked was edit warring on WP:RFAR. If Phil's block was wrong, it wasn't because he was involved. He wasn't involved by any reasonable measure. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk I act partly on my own account and partly on instructions, both direct and indirect, from the arbitrators, who should of course show sensitivity to the wider community. I do (as can anyone) send a reasonable amount of material directly to the arbitration committee, and some of this has to be confidential, but my opinion is that it's better if case summaries and whatnot be placed on the applications alongside public statements by other editors. This way other editors may spot a factual error or omission in clerks' notes (as was the case with the timeline for the userbox war case) and submit corrections to the clerks or the committee as statements on their own account.

My opinion of the status of the clerk is that he's really no more empowered than any other editor. Any other editor may open and close cases, submit opinions and evidence to the arbitrators. The difference in the case of the clerk is that he is constrained to only perform clerical work on cases in which he is not involved. This can be a severe disadvantage; in one case in which I was involved, someone botched the opening of the case and only created a workshop page; it took a couple of days for me to get sometone (who happened to be a clerk) to open the case properly. by contrast, it is acceptable for an involved party who is not a clerk to perform clerical work in lieu of a clerk--you don't have to have a clerk in a case if you don't want one.

The reason why clerks are appointed? They volunteer and they undertake to stick with the job, taking on some of the boring work that would otherwise eat into the spare time that arbitrators are able to devote to their own difficult and grueling task of making good decisions. Being a clerk doesn't give you any special powers, it only gives you responsibilities, which in my experience my fellow clerks take very seriously. Nothing we write has any more meaning than what the parties of the case write, but we are more constrained. We do not make statements on our own account, because we don't clerk cases in which we are involved. It is to be hoped that this gives us a detachment that permits us to see the issues raised in the case, and thus bring things to the arbitrators' attention that may otherwise be missed. We are also available to help involved parties by giving them non-judgemental advice on how best to prepare their cases. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of "clerk" actions (continued)

• Let us stray not into untruth, please, Tony: "aggressively editing my clerk summary" and "edit warring" are hyperbolism at best. I once changed the section header of your summary from "Clerk notes" to "Statement by Tony Sidaway." You reverted "pending discussion." I waited four hours, no discussion was forthcoming, I re-reverted and created a section on the talk page to discuss it. Please spare us the rhetoric and stick to the facts. - brenneman^{L} 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you really, seriously, accusing me of falsehoods? Because I find that rather surprising. From your own timeline:

1. 03:49, 26 April Brenneman creates discussion thread
2. 03:53, 26 April Brenneman re-reverts and points to discussion thread in edit summary

It appears to me that you waited four minutes.

Moreover, you seem to be restructuring your memory of what happened to suit your purpose, here. Recall that, two minutes after my revert of your alteration, I said on your user talk page:

* 23:54, 25 April 2006: "Hi, could you explain the purpose of your recent alteration of my clerk summary? "[5]

I could be wrong here, but I think most people would take that as an invitation, not to wait for four hours for further discussion, but to respond explaining the purpose of the disputed edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony has shuffled around the timeline to support his version of events, whereas the chronological order is clear. Please stop with the obfuscation:

• My change, 35 minutes and Tony reverts, two minutes and he comes to talk, eight minutes later I respond... silence from Tony.
• Tony edits in this period, but fail to engage in the "discussion" that was "pending."
• Three hours and forty-eight minutes later, I create discussion thread. Three minutes after that I place a note on the existing "discussion" saying I've done so, and one minute after that I change the section header again.
• Twenty minutes later Tony blocks me.
• Three hours later (after he has restored his prefered version) Tony finally make a note on the article talk.

I didn't edit the text of his comments, I was transparent about every change I made. I'm open to hearing that this was a provocative edit, but am I expected to obey a zero-revert-rule with regard to Tony Sidaway? Heck, I'm even past the self-imposed zero-admin-revert deadline with regards to him.

I'm trying very very hard to remain civil, to focus on the issues. I've said in every venue I've touched that I want to avoid this being personal and that I'm happy to laugh off the block itself. On the other hand, Tony has made unfounded personal attacks both here and on his talk page, failed to respond to concerns raised, and generally acted un-adminlike. If he can just stop acting like a prat and sinking the boot into me we can have a civil discussion about the clerk's issue. If Tony going to continue to weasel around and use the best-defence-is-good-offence approach than this will probably get escalated. I'm wouldn't dream of asking for an "I was wrong" from Sidaway, but enough already with the "I was right."

brenneman^{L} 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend myself against the above false charges of obfuscation, weaseling and whatnot, which appear to be the usual manifestations of a rather tiresome and very unwelcome personal grudge. The facts are that an editor engaged in edit warring on WP:RFAR and was blocked simultaneously by two clerks acting independently. Creating a discussion thread and then waiting four minutes before reverting, as in this case, doesn't constitute a genuine attempt at engaging in discussion. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, blocking anybody one is involved in a conflict with stinks. Blocking a trusted and respected editor with whom one is in conflict is a serious incident which requires at least an apology. But that's ephemeral.

The serious and lasting questions here are those of authority and responsibility, starting from the definition of the position of clerk, but also other issues Geogre is raising. Wikipedia may not be technically a democracy, but it has been traditionally ruled democratically and very many editors (especially those who write articles) are volunteering their time and brains on the assumption that that's how it will stay, because they have no desire to work in a community ruled by secret rules, unknown authority invested in persons rather than positions, and "common sense" that's common only to the people who agree, and everybody else is a troll. Apart from wikipolitics, wikilawyering, and the moral of the community, the tendency to avoid accountability is seriously harmful to the encyclopedia. The corner-cutting and authority-grabbing behaviour of people who consider themselves to be the in-crowd (which is laughable - what percentage of all articles have individual clerks, arbcom members, or admins edited?) is an inspiration to many a copycat in the main namespace. If this is how old hands get things done at Wikipedia, how do we expect new editors to behave in articles?

As an aside: When ArbCom was established, it was supposed to be the last resource, after mediation, if anybody still remembers that. But, as was painfully shown over and over again, mediation can't work if "common sense" is the supreme law of the community. You can't mediate common sense, because if the people involved had any sense in common, they would have worked it out themselves. Zocky | picture popups 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the word "commonsense" doesn't work for you, try another word with a slightly less pure-sounding meaning: pragmatism. Democratic structures and fixed rules are slow and they're open to subversion. A more pragmatic technique is more suitable to online content development. Development proceeds in a bottom-up fashion with disputes being resolved by direct communication between individuals. Disputes that aren't quickly resolved in this way attract attention and, eventually, usually a resolution emerges from wider discussion. No voting is involved, although polls are sometimes used to gauge whether there is consensus on a course of action.

Only when such techniques (including mediation) fail, does the final step come in. Here a group of people appointed because of their wide acceptance within the community meet en banc to produce binding resolutions to otherwise intractable cases. The closest thing to democracy here is that they make decisions by majority vote. Wikipedia really isn't democratic and if someone has told you that it is then you were misled. --Tony Sidaway 10:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Maybe you should read what he said again. He didn't say "Wikipedia should be a democracy," he said, and I paraphrase, "You should stop acting in a manner that is damaging to the encyclopedia." I think you should stop hurting the encyclopedia, too. (And I agree that Aaron should not be edit warring with you, either). Nandesuka 11:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism would be backing down when faced by overwhelming opposing opinion. Pragmatism would be not seeking a position of trust right after the community overwhelmingly decided against giving you one. We're not talking about pragmatism here, we're talking about getting your way. Zocky | picture popups 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all a storm in a teacup. The only thing I'll say is that admins should not, never, ever, block anyone in a case where they're involved. That means Tony Sidaway should not have blocked Aaron Brenneman, but should have posted here or somewhere requesting another admin to check on it. That is all. Now go have WP:TEA. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above sentiment, that it's a storm in a teacup, but I still find your interpretation somewhat problematic. I'm not involved with Aaron Brenneman, I'm a clerk trying to stop WP:RFAR getting any messier than it already is. As it happens, one other clerk blocked Aaron at precisely the same moment. This may well be the wrong way to deal with edit warring on important process pages, but the simultaneity of the two blocks makes that question somewhat moot. This was a decision reached by two clerks acting independently.

Predictably I have seen suggestions that somehow the other clerk must also be involved with in a dispute with this editor. Further I've seen attempts to drag in quite independent parties, one of them a former arbitrator whose only involvement with Aaron, as far as I can see, is that Aaron once falsely accused him of serious malfeasance.

I am not in favor granting provocative and, frankly, trollish editors more leeway than they already have. Making false accusations against someone does not give you an out. Disrupting WP:RFAR and at the same time being opposed in principle to clerks does not stop clerks blocking you--in this case, severally, simultaneously and independently. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm becoming slightly confused here. First we're given an official-looking "clerk note", informing us that there is apparently a community-imposed block. A bit later, we establish that clerks are "really no more empowered than any other editor". Meanwhile, the community overwhelmingly opines that Aaron should not have been blocked for what he did, and unanimously tells you that in any case, you shouldn't have made the block yourself. Now we're back to the authority of not one but two clerks thinking that it's alright, so it must be alright. So, let's try to get one thing straight: what is it, in your opinion, that gives you the authority to:

• circumvent the established admin code of conduct by blocking an editor that you were in conflict with,
• assume bad faith and engage in personal attacks by calling editors which disagree with you provocative and trolls,
• and ignore the community's opinion on the whole matter?

Zocky | picture popups 04:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony: No. You were involved in a conflict with Aaron Brenneman, you blocked him due to a matter arising, this is something that admins must not do. At all. There are over 700 other admins who could have dealt with this. Whether or not they would have blocked, I won't go into. All I'll say is that I personally would not.

I think that the activities of some Arbitration Clerks in some situations may give other administrators and users the impression that they consider themselves to be somehow "above" them, and would urge you to avoid taking actions that may lead to this impression being formed. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael

I suspect Nancetlv (talk · contribs) and Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) of Israelbeach (talk · contribs), against whom I have recently filed an RfC - but an IP check proved inconclusive. Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael are now edit warring on a new article[6], attacking me on my talk page[7], harassing another admin who blocked Israelbeach for making threats[[8]], and in short, engaging in the same kind of behavior that lead me to file an RfC against Israelbeach. The new edit war is on Joel Leyden, who is user:Israelbeach. Do I have to file a new RfCs against each sockpuppet, or can I somehow fold my complaints into the current Israelbeach RfC? If the latter, how do I do this, without having IP proof that they are sockpuppets? Also, I believe Joel Leyden should be unprotected and reverted to reflect better Wikipedia style, but in light of the current RfC I won't do it myself, see my comment here[9]. Thanks. --Woggly 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I have been actively dealing with the case, though I've yet to actually investigate the underlying editorial dispute comprehensively. I invite and welcome any further opinion and help. Especially from those who are familiar with this particular dispute. El_C 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center dispute

MONGO has expressed a desire for this to be brought up on this page, so I will oblige. The issue is this: there is a notable point of view that 7 World Trade center was demolished by the use of explosives. WP:EL states that, on pages with multiple points of view, external links should exist that represent each point of view. In accordance with that policy, I linked the page to wtc7.net and included a Popular Mechanics article that gave the opposing POV.

MONGO reverted the article numerous times, simply calling wtc7.net "junk" and "nonsense". Finally, a user pointed out that wtc7.net offers a DVD for sale and that websites whose primary purpose is to sell merchandise are not generally acceptable as external links.

MONGO is now continuing to revert any mention of wtc7.net, calling it "advertising" (and even implying that I am somehow involved with the site, saying things like "sorry if this cuts into your pockets") It is crystal clear to me that wtc7.net is a political site that happens to sell a DVD, and not a site that exists to sell merchandise. There is nothing in WP:EL that prohibits it, and everything that encourages it.

Obviously, we're having trouble resolving this edit war. MONGO has taken a tone indicating that he and he alone will determine the content of the article, and I will honestly say that I am concerned he intends to use his administrator powers to block those who disagree with him, as I have seen him make similar blocks in the past, pouncing on those who do not share his POV at their first arguable infraction (for example, Striver. --Hyperbole 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be stretching the facts a bit to call this a "notable point of view". There is a link to the wtc7.net site from 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is in turn linked from 7 World Trade Center. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Small minority view" would cover it, I think. If a link is necessary (a judgment call), how about this one? [10] it is not advertising, and the author is an actual faculty member at an accredited institution of higher learning.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How many hundreds of thousands of people have to hold a point of view for it to be considered "notable"? I concede that the idea that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives is a minority view, but it is certainly far, far more notable than the subjects of thousands of Wikipedia articles. Searching for "7 world trade center" + explosives returns 23,300 Ghits, and that's a fairly restrictive search that certainly doesn't catch them all. I still don't feel I've received a satisfactory answer to why the site shouldn't be linked to both 7 World Trade Center and 9/11 conspiracy theories - it is a POV relevant to both of them, and WP:EL seems to suggest that that means it should be there. --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also consider using a source as a reference, rather than an external link. That provides the opportunity for critical discussion in the body of the article, which can often be better than a link without context. --bainer (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, but don't you think wtc7.net is more specific to 7 World Trade Center than the byu article (which prominently discusses the collapse of the Twin Towers)? Also, we've found in talk that using wtc7.net as a source is probably even more problematic than presenting it as an external link. One question I'd like to settle here is this: does the presence of a single DVD on a website qualify it as "spam"? Or does a site's primary purpose have to be to sell merchandise in order to disqualify it as an external link? --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A question I would ask is how many people have added wtc7.net to how many different pages on wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you ask that? --Hyperbole 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Case in point...I haven't blocked Hyperbole, nor have I threatened to do so. The link Hyperbole wishes to have is this one which clearly has the banner that links to a DVD that is for sale. This violates WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Hyperbole is also incorrect in assuming that I am the only editor that is opposed to this link being in the article.--MONGO 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's fairly hard to find serious conspiracy theorists who aren't also vanity press authors or videographers or some such. The example here isn't unusual, nor is the DVD the sole focus of the site. Many conspiracy theorist websites would have to get blocked from being referenced if we make "having something for sale" an exclusion from being a reference link in articles.

We could link to http://www.wtc7.net/contents.html instead, which states their position without including the DVD ads, if that's the problem point. Georgewilliamherbert 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion page clearly shows, regardless of the obvious violation of WP:SPAM, the site is based on original research that is not collaborated by any major recognized impartial news media, university, trade journal or scientific journal. Regardless, the same effect exists...the site is self promoting and certainly does exist to profit, not only from sales to their DVD but also at the expense of all those that died that day. Pretty sick. Furthermore, the inclusion of the site violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV [11] and I quote from there "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." Complete non scientists as the website has provide nothing but their opinions, nothing more. There are other reasons why we don't violate policies to present nonsense.--MONGO 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I would say it is a notable point of view. I watched a 2 hour academic lecture on the issue via google and the conclusion was that the only scientifically possible explaination was that building # 7 was demolished via explosives, and that even the official report on the building collapse admitted their best explanation of the collapse was flawed. I never considered myself a consipracy theorist prior to watching the lecture, now I certainly have questions. This lecture made the front page of Fark and the resulting discussion had nearly 1000 comments from what I recall. VegaDark 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories should be added to Fark, with links to prisonplanet.com and wtc7.net. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find you use of sarcasm unfounded. I was simply trying to contribute to the discussion civily. VegaDark 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I spoke out of annoyance with these systematic attempts to spam wikipedia under cover of citation about conspiracy theories. I was wrong to vent that annoyance at you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another chapter in the saga of Robsteadman

Robsteadman has sent me several e-mails regarding the fact that I said "Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman" with regards to User:RobSteadman. He is threatening legal action, as he claims it is libel. He also said he intends to put a notice up on this page and tell everyone who supported me on my "rather silly" RfA. He also said he'd forward my email messages to admins to show that I am "not telling the truth". Does anyone have any nuggets of wisdom regarding what should/can be done by me? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. The legal threats are already indefinite block for legal threats material. He's been making such threats to various other people as well - David Gerard 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already been indefinatly blocked and is making these threats via e-mail. This is why I asked here. In my last email I advised him to drop the matter as it is a waste of everyone's time. I am confident that no legal action will be taken against me, but I was just wondering if anyone had any advice on the matter? I'm new to being threatened legally, other than the odd childish customer at work who claim's they'll sue me for false advertising. I'm not even the manager of that store, but yes, they say they'll sue me! Hehehe... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore him and stop responding to his emails. He will get board sooner or latter.Geni 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Emailed me too. I sent him back a polite email explaining that template and thats it. --Syrthiss 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I planned to send him an email telling him I'd ignore him, but decided that would somewhat defeat the purpose of sending the email somewhat! Thanks for the advice... any more that people have would be appreciated. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If your email system supports it, I'd block him. It's not like he doesn't have enough people he could complain about THAT to (*raises hand*). --InShaneee 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a complaint via email too? Gosh, he likes complaining. I was tempted to block him but to be honest I don't like blocking people- I feel that people sometimes change and apologise for what they did, and I'd hate to miss a genuine apology off someone. I realise this is highly unlikely in the circumstances but I'd still like to give him a chance. I don't intend to respond to anymore legal rubbish he sends me though. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I got one too! I'm not a legal expert, but common sense tells me that "Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman" couldn't possibly be libel, any more than "Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder." It's a simple statement of a judgment carried out by others. No sane lawyer is going to accept such a case. And Wikipedia has enough evidence of some of the things Rob said to other users to more than balance anything that was said about him. AnnH ♫ 20:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, how f***ing stupid do you have to be to create a sockpuppet account with your own name, and the same as the indef-blocked account but with one letter capitalised? Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal account Boycottrealbasic needs blocking

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

is clearly a sockpuppet of the perma-banned long-term vandal

BoycottRealBasic2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also here for more information about this user.

–Tifego^(t) _{22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JuliannaRoseMauriello

User is in edit war at Stephanie Adams. User brought page for speedy deletion, but User: Petros471 sent it to AfD. AfD was closed by User:Kimchi.sg and reopened by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello out of process [12]. I'm not sure if Kimchi.sg is an admin, but User:JuliannaRoseMauriello reopening a closed afd and readding the afd tag to the main article space is blatent vandalism. I'd previously advised User:JuliannaRoseMauriello to be WP:COOL and leave the article alone. User took the argument to my userpage, claiming the person she is edit warring with will be banned [13]. Suggest a cool off block of User:JuliannaRoseMauriello.--Isotope23 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Without regards to the issue at hand, do they not need a username block for impersonating Julianna Rose Mauriello? VegaDark 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good eye... I completely missed that.--Isotope23 01:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW Kimchi.sg is not an admin, so I guess it's arguable which action was out of process, the early closure or the rejection of that --pgk^(talk) 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, He should have never closed it in the first place. I'm fine with no action being taken. I've already warned JRM against reopening closed AfD's and advised her to seek admin assistance in the future.--Isotope23 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the AfD should have been left open for longer than it was before first closure (and closure should have been by an admin in this case). As it has now been left open for longer and consensus is clear, I'm happy for another admin to close it now, or just let it run its course (no harm either way). Several users on IRC did say it should go to AfD rather than simply removing the speedy tag, which is why I did that after asking for advice. Petros471 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My whole contention of speedy was that it was a content dispute and would obviously be kept in an AfD. That said AfD was the right place for it an even if the 5 days are allowed to elapse the result is the same and there is no harm in an AfD tag on the article for 4 more days.--Isotope23 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet

Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) seems to want to revert every edit I make, even to the point of reinserting redundant and even incorrect information back into the article. Labelling a simple content dispute as vandalism. Has rejected every attempt at discussion, replying instead with personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation. Looking over recent contribs, it seems this isn't an isolated incident 81.104.165.184 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Offending diffs: accusation of bias, disregards comment as "PA", misrepresentation, more attempts to disrupt threading, vandalises talk page, rv removal of redundant material, PA summary, another PA, rv good edit as "vandalism", yet another PA, a veritable tirade. Worth noting that in all of this, only one of the user's edits at the time had any value at all, namely a fact check. 81.104.165.184 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have participated in dialogue explaining the reason of your misdoing without any structured reply. You have been following each and every of my recent and consistently reverted changes made by other editors 1~& 2. You have edited out content 1, 2 & 3. I kindly ask you to reconsider your action and refrain from vandalising both article pages and talk pages, you are making Wikipedia a very nasty experience for users, such as myself, who work hard to make this encyclopedia as complete as possible. I participate in many projects here, and only encounter problems when meeting users such as yourself who do not wish to collaborate and cut off discussions. Regards, Captain scarlet 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This arguments seems to be nothing more than pety rivalry over editing rather than content. It is a silly situation that has escalated unnecessarily and I have summaries each and every of my edits and vandalism reverts accoridngly. The above accusations by the unregistered editor are nothing more than a game of ping pong. You should ASF and a bit of greeting would help at letting some air off especially in an argument like this. Cheers, Captain scarlet 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone who has deliberately misrepresented my comments and done nothing but attack me instead of my position has no business telling others to AGF, and suggesting that others be civil is nothing short of hypocrisy. 81.104.165.184 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with User:81.104.165.184. I have also experienced Captain scarlet's agressive and uncompromising attitude in the recent weeks. In particular, I was seriously attacked by Captain Scarlet for using American English spelling, which he seems to dislike a lot, and for telling him that Wikipedia frowns people who change American spelling into British spelling when nothing justifies it. You can also have a glimpse into Captain Scarlet's behavior by having a look here: Template talk:Infobox Paris Network main content. Not content to be told by two users that he was wrong in his edits of the infobox, Captain Scarlet decided to turn around the problem by creating a dummy template (Template:Infobox Paris Network main content real), without leting anyone know, in order to bypass the template where his uninspired edits had been opposed. That's the sneakiest behavior I have seen on Wikipedia so far. Any administrator that wants to treat this case, please also ask User:Metropolitan for his opinion on Captain Scarlet. Hardouin 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would an admin like to weigh in on this? I feel that given User:Captain scarlet's apparent attitude, the usual methods will be entirely ineffective. 81.104.165.184 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Obnoxious behavior by SPUI

On the Interstate 75 article consensus has been reached that the infobox should read 'in Hialeah' for the souther terminus. User SPUI has made numerous (well over half a dozen I beleive) reverts to the article changing it back to 'near Miami', and has made abusive comments towards others who have reverted it back. TimL 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also for being such a contributor for roads.. he really has a knack for screwing things up. drumguy8800 - speak 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is probably as good a time as any to mention that SPUI is once again attempting to move hundreds of pages[14], without attempting to gain consensus for the moves and despite being specifically warned not to. --phh (^t/_c) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be a big bloody pain in the arse, and his methods have received some critisicm, but everytime I see someone uninvolved enter into the fray it's the same story: "Don't be a dick, but I agree with the move/smaller template/that sixteen year olds are sexy/that ducks in prams must die/etc/etc." Different day, same story here.

1. Those page moves all look fine, and follow the naming conventions for other parenthetic disambiguators.
2. Calling that link a "warning" is a big stretch. It was localised by definition, not a blanket "Never ever do this again."

I'd encourage this to be worked out at the lowest level possible, and also advise that this "consensus" be worked on a bit more, because what's there on the I 75 talk page isn't it.

brenneman^{L} 07:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. I agree with some of what he wants to do too, but his chosen implementation method is to steamroll everyone else in order to get his way, including acting abusively to anyone who thinks that, gosh, maybe other editors should be allowed to participate in these decisions too. Believe it or not, this gets my back up just a bit—to the point where I even end up edit warring in defense of a position that I don't even agree with. I would add that when the assembled corps of administrators emits a collective yawn at SPUI's antics every time the subject comes up—as it does every few days, like clockwork—it sends a message that some people's actions and contributions are just naturally more valid than everyone else's, which is very alienating and is contrary to the principles upon which Wikipedia is supposedly founded.

Now, if you have any suggestions as to how this can be "worked out at the lowest level" other than attempting to talk about it, which hasn't worked, or mediation, which hasn't worked, or bending over backwards to give him every possible benefit of the doubt, which hasn't worked, or an RFC, which hasn't worked, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --phh (^t/_c) 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that opinion. I happen to disagree with him, but it's his attitude that really raises my ire.JohnnyBGood t c 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Just have to say that whilst i know almost nothing about the situation, i happened upon spuis user page by mere accident a few days back, and, this prompted me to take a close look. I don't understand how this User manages to stay here on Wikipedia. His own user page references a log of blocks and unblocks almost a full page long. Hello? Wikipedia is becoming a safe haven for what I call 2nd generation Trolls. These are the trolls that are clever enough to not technically violate enough rules to get tossed out. But they walk the thin line, intentionally, and cause grief for most of the people they come into contact with. Abusive people don't belong in a co-creative and co constructive environment. Once again i feel the need to urge; Wikipedia shouldn't be COMBAT.

User:Monicasdude

Monicasdude (talk · contribs) is on a PROD removal rampage, in most cases for articles which are clearly deserving of the tag, and then, when the article is taken to AfD, Monicasdude goes to the AfD page to make personal attacks on the nominator. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to present this at the ongoing arbitration case. JoshuaZ 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this sounds like just what Injunctions were made for. --InShaneee 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe has been making false charges against me for several days, beginning with an entirely spurious claim that I breached the legal threats policy, because I criticized her treatment of another editor. As for "in most cases" and "clearly deserving," let's give examples. I object to the deletion of articles on notable subjects, particularly academics and writers, simply because their authors, mostly new editors, don't assert notability as clearly as experienced editors might. As for "personal attacks," I think an editor who nominates articles for deletion wholesale, based on his personal animosity towards another editor, is acting in bad faith, as well as violating WP:STALK and WP:POINT. There seems to be no dispute on this point, just a refusal to comply with policy. And pointing policy violations out is not a personal attack, as is made quite explicit in WP:NPA. Monicasdude 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Monica, I agree with you on the majority of your keep votes and think there is a systematic bias against academics and related professions, but comments like this [15] massively violate WP:AGF, border on violating WP:NPA, are unproductive, and make people less likely, not more likely, to listen to what you have to say. I recommend you stop. JoshuaZ 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

what false charge did I make? You are making massive PROD tag removals. You are making personal attacks. What's false about that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Eusebeus (talk · contribs) has been systematically reviewing the edit histories of Kappa and Monicasdude to find articles that they have "de-prodded" so that he can nominate them for AfD. I am 95% convinced that Eusebeus thinks he is acting in good faith, and that looking at the contribution history of known "de-prodders" is just a good way of finding deletion candidates. However, I believe that regardless of his intentions, the result of his action is wikistalking, and I have advised him to find other ways of locating articles for deletion. I believe Eusebeus is also somewhat hasty and non-selective, for example asserting that the article Horsemen of the Esophagus (a new book about competitive eating) did not assert notability and could not be found in google, despite the fact that the article itself shows that the book is excerpted in Atlantic Monthly (really, how many books get that treatment) and has 4 book reviews on google news after only 3 days in release. I do not approve of Monicadude's forays into uncivil language or his voting speedy keep on every one of Eusebeus's AfD noms, but on the other hand, Eusebeus, probably unintentionally, has found Monicasdude's sore spot and seems determined to keep poking it. I would appreciate a wider view of the conduct of both of them. Thatcher131 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If one doesn't add info when removing a prod, one should either have a good reason to remove it and say so in the edit summary (which Monica rarely does) or should list it at AfD noting that one prefers to keep it. Simply removing prods en mass is unproductive, and Eusebus' response is an understandable attempt to get at least something out of the mess Monica is making removing other peoples tags. JoshuaZ 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically what you have here are 2 editors who have thrown all pretense of rational behavior out the window and are hellbent of playing a wikipedia game of chicken. Rather than chill out a bit in light of the RFArb, RfCs, numerous warnings, and advisements from other editors they've both escalated their questionable behaviors. In my opinion, trying to reason with either of them is pretty much a waste time at this point... they are going to continue down their respective paths regardless of what anyone else says. Let ArbCom sort it out.

I respect the concept of bringing articles that have been deproded (without the deproder making any attempt to improve the article) to AfD for a "peer review" of sorts, but at this point Eusebeus knows how contentious things are and he should be backing off for a bit to let things cool down. It's not like there are no other editors out there checking deprods.--Isotope23 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

...the result of his action is wikistalking Bullcrap. It's called "quality control". If Monicasdude asserts the right to dispute the proposed deletions, then Eusebeus has an equal -- probably superior -- right to put the question up for a larger discussion. Unless you are somehow asserting that Monicasdude's judgments are not allowed to be questioned, for fear of bringing his anger-management issues to the surface. Hmmm, chosing between more discussion or placating a single civility-challenged editor? Not a hard choice.

There are a number of ways an editor can locate articles in need of "quality control." If he found a bunch of bad articles and some of them happened to be Monicasdude de-prods that would one thing. By specifically examining Monicasdude's edit history to find articles he has deprodded, Eusebeus certainly gives the apearance of wikistalking. If he was systematically reverting or contesting MDudes' edits in main article space there would be no question about it. Thatcher131 14:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically what you have here are 2 editors who have thrown all pretense of rational behavior out the window I'd say you're half right. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be wikistalking if Eusebeus was actually thinking about the nominations, but he's managed to make some really really bad nominations. Now a bad nom can lead to a better article, but it might still be "wikistalking" in the sence that Eusebeus doesnt' really seem to be thinking about his nominations. Monicasdude very probably is thinking about his de-prods. Whatever JeffBurdges 13:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable concluding from someone's edits whether or not they're "thinking" when they make them. It's very easy for me to believe that Monicasdude and Eusebeus are both acting in good faith (though maybe not recognizing good faith in each other). Besides, what if an article goes to AfD when it probably shouldn't have? Well, somebody says something, and it gets kept. No harm, no foul. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that, as one of the PRODders reverted by Monicasdude, (I believe that article was later speedy deleted), I appreciate the work Eusebeus is doing. As {{PROD}} doesn't leave good records behind, "wikistalking" is the only way to detect questionable {{PROD}} removals, unless the individual PRODder remembers to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just off base. All the PRODder needs to do is put the article on his/her watchlist. And you should note that Eusebeus has said quite clearly on several occasions that he doesn't take the deprodder's comments into account, but looks only at whether the original prod nomination makes a "prima facie case," without even checking out whether the prod claims have any real basis. That's indiscriminate work, not good work. Monicasdude 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude - no harm, no foul. I sincerely believe that Eusebeus believes that he's doing a service by fixing what he sees as your indiscriminate de-prodding. I'm not agreeing with him, just saying that I really believe he's doing what seems right to him. What's more, it's prefectly ok for these articles to go to AfD, where they can be calmly and civilly discussed, and then kept or deleted on their merits. You're a check on the Prod system, Eusebeus is a check on you, and AfD is a check on Eusebeus. The sun's shining, birds are singing, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on one thing here. The "User contributions" link exists for a reason. Using it does not equal wikistalking! Editors are supposed to check up on each other. Intent to harass is the essential ingredient in stalking. If someone's going around prodding or de-prodding lots of things, they should expect other people will review them. This editor review is what makes the project work. Friday (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thatcher here. The definition of Wikistalking goes beyond simply editing the same articles, it's the intention of it. I sometimes have followed editors from one debate to another, and I've found that Monicasdude is a particularly good one to follow because he seems to catch on to articles about academics. What I do is definitely not wikistalking, because I'm just finding areas of the encyclopedia to contribute to. If I was doing this beacuse I was going to unilaterally disagree with Monicasdude on everything, that would be a kind of harassment. And that's what Eus has been doing; it seems pretty unilateral. Unfortunately, Monicasdude has responded by wikistalking back. Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a back-and-forth talk with Eusebeus about his actions and dispute with Monicasdude, and I am convinced that Eusebeus has acted in good faith. As he brought up on my talk page, 60% of his nominations have tended toward deletion, 15% to keep, and the others redirected, merged, and so forth. In the evidence of such numbers I find it hard to fault Eusebeus for trying to clean up articles, many of which likely would have quietly expired if not for Monicasdude. However, to counterpoint that, I would like to agree with something Thatcher131 has brought up before, that both involved parties in the dispute with just a smidgin more time could have cleaned up the articles in question to a more acceptable standard, and that is an issue that seems to be a major concern in the environment surrounding PRODs and AFDs today. Kuzaar 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kind of an odd take on things, but its interesting to note that if Monicasdude would take a second when he de-prods to edit the article and fix the reason the article was prod'd, most of these problems would be avoided. It would be especially helpful since sometimes its difficult to find the sources Monicasdude was looking at to decide to de-prod. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would that I had read what you posted before I spoke out above, Jareth; it would have saved me some type in typing. I just felt the need, I think, to speak out about a climate that could allow such a worrying conflict between two editors whose actions can both be explained by operation in good faith. Kuzaar 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• The deletion policy places the burden of fixing articles on...nobody. It's nice to give new editors time to work on their first article, but not required. It's nice to notify the primary author of an article on their talk page if the article seems to have a problem, but its not required. It's nice to try and improve an article rather than tagging it for deletion, but its not required. It's nice to improve an article when removing a deletion tag, but its not required. It's nice if people on AfD read the articles instead of just the nomination, but its not required. I'm keeping a rough list in my user space of articles that were tagged for deletion within minutes of their creation by new editors (without notifying the editor or trying to work with them) where the article was kept but the editor was apparently driven away. Isn't that nice? Thatcher131 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Eusebeus Speaks! I apologise for the length of this comment but I won't post aything else, I swear. I didn't really wish to comment here, because I feel that any cursory review of my actions will exonerate me from even the suspicion of wrongdoing. Monicadude's behaviour has been a colourful blend of the bizarre and the obnoxious. Indeed, I'm sure that once I have posted this, he will rejoinder with a point-by-point refutation of everything I say, that (if it is in keeping with the screeds so far) will contain heavy doses of self-righteousness, finger-pointing and adamantine declarations of my bad faith. Ick.

However, to make it easier on the unlucky admins or anyone else who may have the misfortune to be wading through this, I will briefly list what I feel are the salient points here, most of which I have expressed elsewhere . Personally, I feel MD should be sanctioned or censured. His behaviour has been rude, irredeemable and destructive.

1. Prodding and deprodding are part of the process for establishing inclusion here. AfD is a further part of that process. Sending up disputed prods to AfD for futher review should not be considered any kind of problem.
2. I have admitted I used user contribs as an expedient to identifying deprods for review. I completely deny that makes me a stalker. I don't how many deprodders I have brought up for review, but the leader of the pack is not MD. And yet he is the only one who's reacted in this way.
3. I have brought many deprods to AfD for review. Not all my nominations have been perfect, far from it. But AfD is about building consensus and articles that have been kept are probably stronger for it. At the very least, future contributors are more assured that their efforts are being directed toward something that has community sanction of notability and value. This point has been simply missed entirely by a certain editor, but then he is so obsessed with stalking and point-making, I doubt he has taken the time to think the matter through. So: I absolutely reject that I have brought any, even one, deprod to AfD to make a point or in bad faith. Of the many prods I went through, I have brought only a very few to AfD for further discussion. Another point missed entirely by a certain editor who at one point insinuated I was bringing his entire recent batch of deprods, which is long indeed, to AfD.
4. I have had no contact with monicadude prior to this ridiculous outburst, nor shall I want to do so again. He has given no rationale why I would ever want to target him in the first place. Although his subequent actions could well have been prophecy fulfillment.
5. Finally, much has been from certain angry quarters that I was only looking at whether the original prod nomination makes a "prima facie case," without even checking out whether the prod claims have any real basis. Oh yes indeed that is so exactly what I was doing as all my contetsed prod nominations so abundantly make clear. It is true that I argued my criterion was whether the original prod made a prima facie case. I assumed that it would be obvious that that meant where the initial argument had not been satisfied by the reasons for the deprod.

A case in point may be found with respect to the deprodding of Gypsy Sun Experience on grounds that so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument; indeed none was provided. MD has subsequently used this nomination as an example of my spectacularly bad faith and wikistalking. When I tried to get into specifics about its notability, he simply insulted me, eventually resorted to deleting my comments, shouted a bit and then I think he slapped up a vandals notice, lol (all the salacious details on his talk page somewhere). However, a search on the band turns up a mere handful of google hits, and practically nothing actually verifying their existence beyond two gigs they played in Tennessee in (if I recall) 1999 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsy Sun Experience has the dirt. When pressed to provide tangible evidence, the deprodder (after much angry dismissal of my efforts) eventually produced from Google Groups a posting from some guy named Manny who was thirty minutes late to one of the two shows I had already adduced in the AfD nomination - that still makes me laugh. Given who the members are of the band two gigs in TN in '99 may be enough for inclusion (shockingly, so far it is), but it is a stretch to call that so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument. And this is the poster child of my bad faith. Yea, right.

Do I really need to say more? (I'd rather not.) As it stands, my deprod review is souring on me. NO WAY that something like Gypsy Sun Experience should pass AfD after the obvious verifiability problem I have identified (add to that the 0 Lexis Nexis results talked about on the page). Yet extreme, groundless and angry ranting have been sufficient to taint my actions and turn something that is perfectly proper, procedurally sound, and frankly good for what we are doing here into a real question mark. That is unfortunate. Eusebeus 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I wouldn't consieder any edits where they person is reallly thinking about it as wikistalking. Eusebeus IMHO is clearly wikistalking Monicasdude because Eusebeus AfDed a Harvard dean, among other botched AfDs. Monicasdude is *also* wikistalking Eusebeus as M accused Eusebeus of bad faith on several articles which are really questionable (see Eusebeus's comment). Anyway, my point is: It ain't wikistalking if your at least half right, but making any series of bad calls based mostly upon the identity of the editor is wikistalking. Nothing wrong with using another person edit history, thats why its there, but you need to actually think about what your doing. Otherwise you piss people off. JeffBurdges 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dillinger (talk · contribs)

Two violations of WP:NPA: [16] and this one in the edit summary. File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For the edit summary one, per WP:NPA:

A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

— WP:NPA

And it was realy just a stylistic change. The other one I would count as a personal atack, and he has been repeatly warned, I am going to abstain from blocking the user as I was the warning party, and am friends with User:Ardenn, so don't feel I would be very NPOV... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:DelphicOracle

DelphicOracle (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) recently vandalised at AN. Their contributions look a bit fishy to me (a new user who seems to have a grasp of policy, and then vandalises the admin area) so I suspect sockpuppetry/banned user. --kingboyk 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina

Could someone please intervene in the revert war that is going on at those two articles. Users OneEuropeanHeart, VsA, and Darklegions continuously revert to an old edition (which is incomplete and full of deliberate omissions) from the newer one translated from the comprehensive, sourced and overall better Spanish Wikipedia's [Argentina] article. As far as I have understood, the consensus as it stands in Talk:Argentina#Demographics and Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself, is that all the information in the edition that has been imported from the Spanish Wikipedia will be kept, and the discussion that currently is continuing is to decide what parts should be condensed into fewer words.

The users, especially OneEuropeanHeart and VsA, continue deleting all the newly introduced content from the Spanish Wikipedia which is itself sourced from the Argentine Census, INDEC, Argentine government institutions and agencies, and the genetic findings of the Genetics Department of Argentina's most reputable institution, the University of Buenos Aires. They continue deleting absolutely all information on the indigenous community of Argentina, so that there is no longer any mention of the indigenous population at all. Also, many users have now put protest to the use of the CIA when concerning ethic groups, and this is not only on the Argentina article (this concern can be found in both talk pages, as well as in Talk:Demographics of Chile).

While they revert, all three users have deceptively written "discussion it's still on progress" in the edit summary, but none of the three have actually contributed to either discussion, whether Talk:Argentina#Demographics or Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself (except for OneEuropeanHeart when he made one single comment prior to the revert war to merely disagree against consensus, without actually adding anything to the debate), and the consensus of the Talk: pages that they cite during their reverts actually go against the reverts that they are making (reverts that delete all the above mentioned Argentine government department and agencies, private Argentine and Argentine institutional sources and all mention of Argentina’s indigenous community.) Al-Andalus 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see this and User talk:Al-Andalus. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Icemanofbarcelona

This user has two accounts at Icemanofbarcelona (talk • contribs) and Icemanofbarcelona101 (talk • contribs). He persists in removing interwiki links to articles in other languages, in partcular removing links to Spanish articles on autonomous regions of Spain (which indicates political motivation); and removing links to articles in Asian languages such as Korean.

He has also made other controversial edits, and regularly moves pages about without any discussion – often a whole sequence of moves and edits so that it is difficult and time-consuming to sort out the resulting mess.

He does seem to make some useful minor edits to articles. The trouble is, this user never responds to comments or warnings on his user pages, and never participates in any discussion before making changes to articles or moving pages. I and several other users have warned him (including {{test4}}s) but to no avail. Can something be done to stop this user's persistent low-level vandalism? JRawle (Talk) 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pat8722

I have blocked Pat8722 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for consistent and pervasive gaming of WP:3RR on Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Further info is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Note that the user never performed more than three reverts in 24 hours, but did 6 in 24 and a half. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his ArbCom-imposed indefinite block as 63.164.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); can an admin block this IP please? Thanks. Demiurge 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• and again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

204.186.253.89 - repeated vandalism

See User talk:204.186.253.89. Repeated vandalism. Latest is to CrapWhpq 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Duffy (author) article protected

Also see Talk:Jim Duffy (author). Comments, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.22.85 (talk • contribs)

I believe that's what the article talk page is for. This seems like a legitimate protection to get you to discuss points instead of simply trying to make a point. --InShaneee 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a pattern of banned user Skyring, banned user Ted Wilkes, and many, many, many anonymous IPs posting messages telling everyone which Wikipedia editor they think is Jim Duffy in real life. (In case you're not aware, Mr or Ms 72.234.22.85, editors can be banned from Wikipedia for revealing personal information about Wikipedians.) I couldn't care less if another editor is really Jim Duffy or the Duchess of Cornwall; nor have I any particular interest in the article. In fact, the only reason it's on my watchlist is because of the trolling and harassment that has been going on. I'm actually getting a bit bored at this stage, constantly being told WHO HE IS. I even received an e-mail about it. AnnH ♫ 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, JTDirl himself said he is Jim Duffy, so I don't see that in itself as a blockable offense. However, it appears pretty likely this anon is a user currently under a long block. Jonathunder 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Em . . . actually he doesn't. Trolls he bans post statements all over Wikipedia making the claim. lol Thom, aka FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So you go by Thom now? OK. Cheers. Jonathunder 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 returns from block to harass

Ati3414 has returned from his ban with apparrently no intent other than to harass. As you can see here, since returning he has done nothing but post on my talk page with insults, strong accusations, and ad hominem attacks. User_talk:Gregory9#Gregory9.27s_refusal_to_understand_basic_physics is one example of such activity.

At least he is not disrupting the Wiki pages this time, but I am losing all patience with this individual. I think his repeated bans and response has shown that he is not interested in contributing to or improving wikipedia. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Gregory9 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean he's returned from his month's block, right? Those posts of his aren't very polite, but I wouldn't say most of them, if you take them separately, are on the face of it done with "no intent other than to harass"; many seem like attempts to discuss. On the other hand, I do agree that this isn't normal talkpage interaction. The sheer number of posts, their smallness and annoyingness (such as inserting sarcastic headers, and interminably editing his own previous posts), does constitute trolling and harassment IMO. You shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. Do you want him to not post on your page at all? Or to keep his posts to a certain, specified, number a day, so that discussion remains possible? Please tell him exactly what kind of posting on your page you will accept, if any. That is, if you haven't already. (I can't find anything about it on your page, but then he's turned it into a mess, and his own page is worse, with all the deletions and reversions it's suffered.) If you make a direct request and he doesn't respect it, I'll warn him, and if he flouts that, I'll re-block him. His activity on your page sure isn't building the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I meant block. I've changed the header to reflect the correct terminology.

You are correct in that while the posts may "constitute trolling and harassment", that "many seem like attempts to discuss". This may appear so at first glance, because some posts do contain scientific phrases or statements (regardless of their correctness). But it is clear (IMO) that he is not interested in discussion, as he refuses to answer any direct questions - he posts deriding remarks as if they are answers. You suggested: "Please tell him exactly what kind of posting on your page you will accept, if any." The problem is that I HAVE. On Mar 17, I wrote: "Since you have brought this to a standstill, I will be gracious and [answer your questions] first. After this you must answer my questions, or this discussion is over. As it is not even a discussion if one party refuses to [answer questions]." (the underlining was included in the actual post for emphasis as well) I then posted one very specific question (which I had asked before as well), and even to this day he refuses to answer it, or other questions.

I feel it is very reasonable to expect answers to simple direct questions in a discussion. He has shown to me that he does not want discussion, he just wants to continue harassing and publicly trying to claiming that I am incompetent, as well as push his incorrect scientific views. (Which I have even shown him to be incorrect through reliable sources.) Gregory9 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be reasonable, but I would rather not have to try to evaluate whether or not he can be said to answer particular questions (they're not that simple to me ;-)). Your request to him is too old, too, and it frankly doesn't sound as if you've got much hope of getting a straightforward discussion going; I'm assuming he didn't get a month's block for nothing. Would you consider posting something really unambiguous like "This is leading nowhere, please don't post on my page again", or "I'm finding messaging on this scale unmanageable, please post no more than four times a day to my page from now on"? That I could deal with. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I guess you're right: "it frankly doesn't sound as if you've got much hope of getting a straightforward discussion going". So I will post your suggestion. Hopefully this will end it quietly. Thanks for your help.

Oh, and after this is done, can I delete all that to clean up my talk page and remove the accusations? Or what is the appropriate procedure here? Thanks Gregory9 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally it's best to clean up your page by archiving it, but this is a case where I for one wouldn't hesitate to delete the whole conversation. It's important to have an informative edit summary if you do, though, something that shows that this is still accessible through the History tab. Good luck, I'll keep an eye on your page. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

User:deeceevoice again

Incivility at Blackface talk page -- [17], including "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one", racial remarks, etc. Justforasecond 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You really seem to be grasping here. I think you should give it a rest. Friday (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The quoted remark is definitely not incivil; "assholes" isn't used as a vituperative but as part of a colloquial simile. Even as the usage is inelegant (if clear), it's certainly not proscribed by general Wikipedia policies/guidelines or specific injunctions vis-à-vis Deeceevoice. (I take no position apropos of the "racial remarks" charge, into which I haven't had occasion to look.) Joe 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JFAS, you're violating the terms set out for you RE:DCV, thereby setting yourself for a block. There will be no further warnings. El_C 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the message deeceevoice was responding to, I thought, while perhaps not Sesame Street-appropriate, the message was actually not all that incivil. Maybe I'm a sucker for ASCII smiley faces. Try to have thicker skin, JFAS (especially as you're not even involved in the conversation in question). JDoorjam Talk 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any racism in a cursory glance, and am inclined to agree with JDoorj on this. If there are any examples of racism by Deecee I'd be interested in seeing them pointed out. JoshuaZ 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoke too soon - you're onto it as I typed ;) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that katefan0 posted about this a few weeks ago. We need every admin to add the AIAV page to their watchlist. We had a situation this AM where there were *7* items listed there, some as old as 2 hours. No excuse. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually used the exact post I made here just a few days earlier when I got a little concerned too [18] - but you guys do a great job and worse case there's some crazy dude in New Zealand watching it for ya :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe User:Umph may be ban-evading

I am not sure how to do this, and I kind of feel wrong, but I have suspicions that Onlyslighted is the same person as User:Umph. Onlyslighted as re-uploaded pictures that Umph original posted that were taken down because of copyright infringment. If nothing else, Onlyslighted has uploaded numerous pictures that raise copy right questions on my part. I hope that someone will look into this issue. Thank you! --Moeron 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

When I blocked Umph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I did so with the assumption that if he expressed a willingness to abide by our copyright policies, he could return. Since this user seems by and large to be OK for copyright (there are a couple of problematic images, which I've dealt with, but very few), I have no problem with his editing here whether he's Umph or not. Chick Bowen 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding "rejected" arbitration case "merecat"

I'd like to know what exactly I'm supposed to do then, to deal with this kind of abusiveness. It sort of puts me in the position of "Great, theres no consequences for abusive people, and nothing to be done about it, and no real authority to contact." It reduces the situation to anarchy, and it offers no solutions or consequences for blatant abusiveness.

Under such conditions, I fail to see how wikipedia can operate, and it makes me think i am probably wasting my time here in the first place. User talk:Prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

Prometheuspan 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

<spewn out elsewhere> In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization that Wikipedia is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating, because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator. Prometheuspan 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, and my own amusement, please note that the arbitration case has not been rejected as of yet. --InShaneee 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ????????? Says "rejected." What am i missing? is there a vote? Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, m:Power structure is a good read about how Wikipedia really works. This is a weird place, but there are all kinds of ways to get things done in it. From your comments here and at the arbitration page (you use the word "illegal" to refer to editorial behavior - I find that very unnatural), it appears that you think of Wikipedia according to a legalistic model, and are disappointed with the "legal system" you find. I think that those who are happiest and most productive here don't use that kind of model at all, but something different. Just... food for thought. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks bacchus, that was interesting and informative. I don't really care what the legal model is, I am certain that merecats behavior is abusive, manipulative, and will require some sort of authoritative intervention to stop. You are right, thanks for pointing it out. Part of my stress here is that the system isn't conforming to my expectations, and thats an important thing for me to keep in mind. Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) You're right, Prometheuspan - I went through much the same epiphany (a lot of people do) and came out the other side, figuring, ok, if that's how it is, then I'll deal with it on that basis also. No point fighting it, and it would be a shame for a good editor to walk away. The more editors, the less of a headless dictatorship also. I find this perspective helps me - hope it helps you too. (no, I'm not an admin and never will be) ElectricRay 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) It seems the "headless dictator" concept was confusing here to you. The more people particpate, the more distant the final authority becomes and the less accessible the final authority becomes. Jimbo isn't headless, but as a dictator, he can't possibly be in the loop or in the know of whats really going on. This sets up a pyramid structure, or chain of command where authority of the sort that does anything useful is swallowed into the black hole of the sheer number of people that are involved. I am not an admin, and never want to be, probably best i recuse myself from actually writing articles even, I'm a biased Formal logic argument machine, I can identify neutrality, but getting it to come off of my lips or from my fingertips is nearly impossible. The important question here is really simple down to a single point. Can a single person, cleverly gaming the system, be allowed to lie, delete entire pages of comments without justification, make veiled ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments, all just to keep an article from being written? Is that right? Is it just? Or, are there realistic means to deal with this sort of abusive behavior? The ONLY reason why merecat quit deleting pages without cause is because i went ballistic, and even then one of his fellow cronies had to tell him to wise up. There are at least three pages of ad hominem and straw man abuse heaped against poor Nescio over there, Nescio should never have had to endure that. This shouldn't be combat. A realistic and factual complaint regarding abusive behavior should be dealt with in a realistic and timely fashion. If that isn't possible here, then I do need to find someplace else to give my energy to. Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here to confirm that the "merecat" arbitration is still very much live. When I checked earlier today, only one arbitrator had expressed an opinion on it. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to point out the the correct way to to deal with ad-hominim attacks is not to make more of them, RfA or not. --InShaneee 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Passive Aggressive Behaviour

This is possibly the wrong place to raise this, but is there any Wikipedia policy about avoiding passive aggressive behaviour - some sort of addendum to the "be civil" or "don't be a dick" policies? It strikes me a number of users here - especially the younger ones - are dab hands at this, and nothing, but nothing, is more likely to wind up an "adversary" in a content dispute. Inevitably incensed adversary will react grumpily, and thereby be the "uncivil" one, whereas the passive aggressive behaviour is the cause of everything.

Examples: users being utterly obnoxious and self righteous in a debate, then, when this behaviour is noted, all of a sudden reverting to "please treat other users with respect and don't use personal attacks" - when there hasn't actually been a personal attack (or at any rate the user totally deserved it!). I won't name names or cite example bc my intention isn't to snitch on anyone; rather to see whether the great and the good have thought about whether this argumentation strategy should be seen for what it is: just as obnoxious and odious (and indeed moreso) as not being civil in the first place.

At any rate, when confronted with the behaviour it would be nice to go back and say, smugly, "please don't indulge in passive aggressive behaviour: WP:Don't Be Passive Aggressive" (which is something I do anyway) and being immune from the inevitable response allegations of incivilility or engaging in personal attacks etc. ElectricRay 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This idea may have merit. Hrmmm.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is exactly what you are accusing others of doing! If you had some way to say "don't be passive aggressive" and then quote "be immune from [...] allegations of incivility", I don't see how that's different to the alleged problem in the first place - not that I've seen anything that falls under your term "passive aggressive behaviour" anyway. Your argument that sometimes the user "deserved" a personal attack does you no credit either. ZoFreX 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he should heed his own advice, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Sometimes, one can only fight fire with fire... And as for exampoles of passive aggressive behaviour, here's a classic: "Your argument that sometimes the user "deserved" a personal attack does you no credit either.". Don't be a dick. ElectricRay 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

MeatballWiki has wise words on social issues. One would predict that it comments on this form of trolling, too. Dr Zak 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Classic 'passive aggressive' beheaviour already falls under 'don't be a dick'. Remember, it's possible to be perfectly civil while still being a dick. Lawyers (wiki- and otherwise) are particularly adept at this. For the record, trying to goad other editors into a policy violation (WP:NPA, WP:3RR, etc.) is frowned upon, and will often result in censure.

Remember that our behaviour-related policies represent guidelines to deal with particularly common problems; they're not meant to be exhaustive. These policies just special cases of 'don't be a dick', and they all flow therefrom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fits perfectly into "don't be a dick" for me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, and here I thought "Don't be a Dick" wasn't policy but guideline. The problems with "dick" and "NPA" and "no passive aggression" is that every single one of them has an excessive element of interpretation in it. I can go on, rather pedantically, about why all discussions break down when the interpretive medium hasn't been outlined with metrics to assess behavior, but no one needs to hear that again. Geogre 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse: User:El C

This user has been saying things like "JFAS, you're violating the terms set out for you RE:DCV, thereby setting yourself for a block. There will be no further warnings. El_C 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)". These "terms" are a rule he has created himself; that he'll block me for any comment about deeceevoice (such as reporting him/her for violations of his/her arbcom ruling).

In addition he blocked me days ago for asking him for civility.

Justforasecond 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

These terms and the subsequent block have been outlined at /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice above, and there appear to have been no objections to them. As always, I invite further input from those who are willing to study the form of interaction between JFAS and DCV. El_C 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head trying to figure that out... obviously don't like each other, but...

I do see your "...or will be censured" as missing some context and backstory as to why blocking is needed at this time; JFAS hadn't actually posted very much in the ANI thread above when you stated that, and the gripe in response didn't clearly violate any normal WP policies. What am I missing in backstory? Georgewilliamherbert 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

oh dear... someone post the condensed version of this, please? Its beyond me right now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I invite further input from those who are willing to study the form of interaction between JFAS and DCV more or less in its entirety — definitely not just /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice and the latest /User:deeceevoice_again. This is a reoccuring pattern going back months, whereby JFAS would target DCV in various venues. El_C 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I support El C's handling of this. The provocation on both sides of the Deeceevoice situation has gone on long enough; it's time to rein it in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to study the form of interaction in its entirety; the first few things I hit had few elements of backstory, but I'm finding more as I wander further afield through histories and such. I commented after ten minutes of looking, and kept looking, and what I found after that point is much more illuminating.

It might make sense to RFC JFAS on this point, just to get it on the record and summarized somewhere. Among other things that provides the opportunity to collect and summarize things, which then can be insta-referenced for future incidents (if any). Also would make it clear to newcomers to the dispute that it's not just El C but a general community feeling that JFAS has been pushing the envelope into abusive territory on this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, I just dread the work involved and prefer to act unilaterally (did I just say that outloud?). But I think enough of the arbitrators are sufficiently familliar with the case, and JFAS portion of it specifically, that this could be appealed to them in the framework of RFAR/DCV as opposed to documenting much of what has already been noted there. I'm here to save them [and also, very much inadvertantly, myself] time & energy. Like a superclerk, without summaries! El_C 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

JSAF is over-the-top sometimes, see the links El_C provided. However, I can't agree with a blanket statement of "You're not allowed to comment on the activities of this other editor" and I certainly can't agree with enforcing such a decree with blocks. I think El_C is sometimes overzealous in his defense of DCV. She was sanctioned by the arbcom for good reason, and good faith efforts to enforce the arbcom decision should be encouraged, not discouraged. However, whether JSAF is acting in good faith on this matter is probably open to personal interpretation. I've advised him to back off myself, which I think is appropriate. Forcing him to back off with threats and blocks is far less appropriate, from where I sit. I think JSAF and El_C should both drop the issue. Friday (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly drop it — until the next time JFAS targets DCV as in the two cases above, which, if experience is any indication, will be soon enough. If consensus among admins (less so from ones such as Friday who I think is sometimes overzealous in her defence of JFAS) is that I have to go through bureaucratic hoops and otherwise proceduralism to keep the peace, so be it. El_C 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about bureaucratic hoops- I'd much rather rely on simple common sense. I agree that JSAF is in the wrong here, but a questionable block on him will only lend his cries of admin abuse more creedence. If you want to block him for disruption, so be it- I'm a firm believer in disruption blocks, despite their controversial nature. But be sure to make a good case for the block- blocking him specifically for commenting on DCV's actions would be a terrible idea, IMO. Friday (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a bureaucratic hoop or proceduralism to ask that there be some formal documentation for an abuse case in which it's escalated to respected admins doing insta-block for incidents which, on the face of it from the immediate provocation, aren't a WP policy violation.

That's not you're wrong for doing those blocks; with what I've found by now, I won't object to those. That's I didn't get why those blocks were done or what the big deal was until I dug into it for a long time; if a reasonable editor or admin making a reasonable initial inquiry into a situation they aren't familiar with can think that the action wasn't justified, then it's probably not documented well enough (yet). Part of the reason for all the hoops and procedure is that it gives previously uninvolved/unaware parties the short form intro to what's wrong with the situation.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the abovementioned /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice and Incidents#User:deeceevoice_again speak volume as to this overall pattern, and am currently operating under the presumption that a third /Incidents#User:Deeceevoice yet again notice this week is to be viewd as disruptive. If DCV is staying away from JFAS, which she has been, I think it's only fair if JFAS would do the same. El_C 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This problem is already being dealt with. People are disagreeing with his claims- he's really stretching things. A block would escalate the hard feelings with little benefit I can see. Friday (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the problem is being dealt with substantially, and am inclined to deter it from being repeated idefinitely. El_C 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I think the RFC is a good idea. I'll even help. All I'm saying is, disruption blocks need to have a good case made for them. If the case is just "he posted on AN/I complaining about another editor", that's not really a blockworthy offense. I agree that there is a pattern of problem behavior here, so surely there are better reasons for a block. Friday (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. But I think our words as two admins at the somewhat opposite ends of the dispute really count for something and that the misconduct is rather obvious for the purposes of forecfuly keeping the interaction between the two to a minimum (that JFAS is almost always the instigator in these notwithstanding). I'm sure there are more useful things you could be doing here than contributing to such an RfC, I certainly know of several pressing issues that editors wish me to attend to and I'm not even sure I can find the time to deal with those. El_C 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Me, I think that ArbCom should act upon my suggestion at the top of the relevant "workshop" talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that few administrators are opposed to this "one man arbcom" action. It is by no means disruption to report incivil actions by a user on probation here, and I think we'd all agree that responding to editors with "opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one" is hardly civil. If posting here is not disruption then there is no reason for these blocks, and El C is abusing his priviliges. Justforasecond 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a new trend lately: that editors, even respected long-term contributors and admins[19], are threatened with blocking and bans in order to protect a trouble user, who is not only contentious, discourteous and incivil since the very first contribution she ever made [20], but who also manages to violate all Wiki guidelines and policies frequently and continuously and is notorious for her disparaging remarks about "white folks" and other "non-blacks".

Personally, I get tired to see people dancing around the golden calf ad nauseam, and I'm sure that admins like EL_C will appreciate it if their actions are not questioned and if their self-made rules will be accepted without "bureaucratic hoops" and "otherwise proceduralism" such as providing summaries. That's why I suggest to add Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity to Wikipedia's key policies. Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity should include guidelines such as: (1) Do not caution DCV to refrain from edit wars, personal attacks and racist remarks -- otherwise you will be banned for incivility. (2) Do not oppose DCV's logical fallacies, unsourced POV edits and other falsifications -- otherwise you will be banned for harassment. (3) If you think that DCV violated Wiki guidelines, suck it up and move on and don't bring it to the admin noticeboard -- otherwise you will be banned for stalking. (4) Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity can be expanded, but only in favor of DCV, by any admin at any time without notice . (5) If you disagree with guideline (1)-(4) then you are a racist and a life long ban will be enacted. Wikipedia:Deeceevoice_Immunity will save all of us a lot of time and energy. CoYep 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion and sarcasm has been noted, but my warning nonetheless stands. Feel free to take whatever action you see fit. El_C 20:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Tony_Sidaway et al

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence This page is surreal, particularly the accusations that I've vandalized the Julien Dubuque Bridge article: someone is having hallucinations.

You've got a bunch of Republicans editing articles to suit their POV -- a rather common practice with Republican contributers to Wikipedia, but not one the majority of Wikipedia admins adhere to. In the instance of Jim Nussle, the nastiness developed because of the routine removal of the sordid details of his lurid, adultery-drenched divorce. Following the right-wing Wikipedia gospel that any article showing a Republican to be something other than God's gift shall be edited otherwise, and similarly, that any article not demonstrating a Democrat to be a monster shall be edited otherwise, I am coming to the conclusion that Tony Sidaway is a stalking horse for Karl Rove's ideology and tactics. --FourthAve 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been posted here strictly to launch personal attacks of the type that your Abritration case has been opened to investigate. I urge everyone to ignore this.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's making Tony's point for Tony, so it's not all bad...

FourthAve: you can present evidence in the RFA. That's what your section there at the bottom is for. Arbitration is the step above ANI and RFCs; complaining here that you're being Arbitrated is somewhat pointless. If people are presenting evidence which you object to you can rebut it; if they're presenting evidence or conclusions which are factually wrong, you can ask for things like IP address checks to try and clear your name from those claims. But you have to do it over there. Launching personal attacks on Tony here is... what they've filed an Arbitration case about. And makes you look guilty on all the other claims / counts as well. Georgewilliamherbert 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that Sean Black is an admin. Yet he seems to have blocked users. Is this possible for non-admins? See [[21]]

As for responding, I did ages ago and this thing keeps getting updated by the Karl Rove trolls.--FourthAve 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black is indeed an admin. Jonathunder 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black is an admin. It says so right at the top of his user page.

You responded once to the Request for Arbitration case, but that's like making an opening statement in a court case and then never bringing any witnesses to testify or documentary evidence to court, or cross-examining any other witnesses who testify. Arbitration is a dynamic and ongoing process, you are able to and strongly encouraged to keep responding to claims and evidence and opinions made. You can continue providing evidence and comments until the Arbitration Committee vote to end the case.

There are no equivalents of attorneys in Wikipedia arbitration, but you do need to understand and participate in the process. If you do not understand the process, and the available information on the Arbitration WP pages does not explain it well enough to you, please contact the Arbitration committee and ask for help or a mentor or something. Georgewilliamherbert 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but if you haven't edited the Julien Dubuque Bridge article please say so on the evidence page, and your denial will be taken into account and investigated.

It wasn't my choice to bring the arbitration case; if it had been up to me I would have recommended that we continue to use normal administrator tools to deal with your problematic edits. Sadly it seems that you are close to a formal one year ban from Wikipedia, which I think could have been avoided has we continued to deal with you, as we were, sensitively and with due concern for your incorrect belief that those you are dealing with are all right wing conservatives. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for information's sake, in re User:Sean Black, I don't see his name on the Wikipedia:List of administrators. See the last entry on User talk:Seoul Jjang, dated 27 April. The block actually was done by User:David Gerard, who really is an admin, today Friday 28 April.

Sean Black is listed as an admin in the up-to-date userlist. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the arbitration thing, I responded some time ago. I came across this thing recently only by snooping into other people's mail and edit-lists, your own included. I gather this is technically 'wikistalking', but I see others on my case have pretty much done the same thing. As for you being a Karl Rove rightwinger abusing you office to zealously promote the Republican cause, I withdraw the charge, but remain suspicious of your editorial and administrative POV. There have been public press reports about Republicans vandalizing articles, in order to help Republicans or hinder Democrats -- and this THIS IS THE ISSUE: you either think this is a good thing or you don't; my accusers seem think this is a good thing, and you as an admin are in the line of fire and may be tarred with the same brush.

I thought I had requested a mentor, in the person of admin User:Dbachmann, and that the issue was now closed. Since this seems to not be the case, it will take me several hours to address the issue, and this may take me several days to execute; I will probably ask institution of arb procedings against them in return. I find this all very opaque. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to do. --FourthAve 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to be looking very hard. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sean_Black, the bureaucrat log, and Special:Listusers seem to disagree with your conclusion that I'm not an admin. Additionally, I did block User:Seoul Jjang [22]. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It must be a miracle! You can perform admin tasks and not be an admin...now that's power.--MONGO 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See what a little faith will get you these days? Hallelujah. Amen. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought everybody knew that Sean has magic powers. Snoutwood (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Look here. That's the list of admins from 4/22. Sean is there. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was only joking. Snoutwood (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging debate with Image:Red carnation.jpg and Image:Red carnation.png

Earlier today I removed these images from templates and userpages because they are tagged {{symbol}}, which is a fair use tag. The use of such images in template and userspace is prohibited by Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Since then, User:Dragon695 has claimed that Socialist International does not claim any copyrights on the image [23]. Dragon695 subsequently changed the tag on Image:Red carnation.jpg to {{PD-release}}, asserting that socialists do not believe in copyright. I reverted this change noting in my response on my talk page and in the edit summary of my revert that there has been no verification of the organization releasing their rights to the image [24]. User:Dragon695 reverted may change citing Property as proof that socialists held no copyrights to the image. I reverted his change, and am now reporting this here. I will not revert again should he undo my reversion. I would like input from other administrators on whether the {{symbol}} tag is appropriate given that the organization which created the symbol has not specifically released their rights to the image, despite the claim that socialists do not believe in copyrights. From Socialist International's website, from which the image was taken, I have found no copyright statement. However, I have found no specific copyright release, such as this release from another organization with respect to its images. It is my understanding that failing a specific release of rights, the organization retains those rights and we do not have authority to use their images outside of a fair use claim until we have verification that they have release their rights. Assistance/feedback please? --Durin 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of socialists believe in copyright. If there's no specific release, then the images fall under copyright, and one user's interpretation of socialism does nothing to change that. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they believe in it or not, laws apply to everyone, including copyright laws. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if someone would take the time to explain to the people putting these images back into {{User Social Democrat (OSV)}} and {{User Social Democrat}} why it may not be included in the template and why these images still must be tagged as {{symbol}}. The situation has degraded into a dispute, and my further attempts at doing the right thing will simply fan the flames. Thank you. --Durin 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...a question. The image says it's used on one of my subpages in userspace, but I can't track it down. Strange. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I found it and removed it [25]. <insert pithy comment about another user being able/forced to find a fair use image in your 218 userboxes when you could not do the same> :) --Durin 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I removed the fair use images from all userpages they were transcluded on. Ral315 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu returning once again while blocked under anon

Blocked User:Leyasu returning under anon 86.132.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to revert articles again[26].. for atleast the second time during their current week ban.

This includes reverts on the "Gothic Metal" article, which the user was put on ArbCon parole for causing trouble on before (a parole which has been violated 5 times in the past), [27] and the "Children of Bodom" article... which the user is infamous for vandalising.... was found guilty of using sock puppets while blocked, with IP's similar to this. [28], perhaps its time to pull the plug? - Deathrocker 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the check user having been questioned, the only connection the anons where shown to have to me, where that they used the same ISP.

Also, the user Deathrocker has been banned for one month for vandalising the Gothic Metal article, and was also banned from editing it. Within one week of being unbanned, the user went back to the Gothic Metal article to violate their ban from it, and to revert back to the vandalised version of the page on three occasions [29], [30], [31], on the basis that he was above policy.

Deathrocker was also warned for impersonating myself, which he openly has bragged about and has been banned for before. The user has also vandalised my user page on several occasions [32], [33], [34], [35].

Deathrocker hasnt just vandalised my user page either, he also has vandalised Admin Sceptres user page for blocking him for one month [36], [37], [38].

Deathrocker is also currently pending a decision on a permenant ban from Wikipedia regarding their Arbirrition case due to their lack of 'good faith' edits to the community.

As such, i ask for a check user on this IP to confirm wether its me, and not an impersonator again. Ley Shade 14:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm nice try Leyasu... but as usual you are incorrect and lieing (something many, many users have accused you of... rather sad that you still haven't changed), I have never "bragged about impersonating you"... or been warned for anything of the sort, simply because I have never impersonated you in the first place.

On the Gothic Metal article.. I was banned for revert warring with who??.... you, you were also banned in that incident, only difference is I debated by ban and recived a dubious longer ban for the same incicdent, whereas you didn't... I don't have a "ban from editing Gothic Metal article".... I'd like to see where you got that idea from?.. so, I'm not violating anything.

The Arbitration case against me was REJECTED over a month ago, there was also never mention of "permanent ban" so more typical BS from you, although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times, that is tre... what any of your garbage lies has to do with this incident, is beyond me... care to explain? - Deathrocker 16:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, stop arguing. This is not the place for it. Leyasu, the arbitration case was rejected. Deathrocker, stop being incivil. You were close to a permanent block last month. After consultation on IRC with a few users, I've been advised to open another RfAr. Will (^E_@) T 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

User:58.79.38.16 warned and blocked before for spamming (User talk:58.79.38.16) is at it again. --DV8 2XL 11:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As it's second block and looks like static IP I've blocked again for 3 days. Petros471 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Privacy violations by Hamsacharya dan

I changed my username due to previous harrassment by Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs), specifically a bogus accusation and a legal threat made on the talk page of my old username (User_talk:Adityanath, now deleted). He is now stalking me on Wikipedia, revealing my previous username [39] by which I am well-known elsewhere on the net and had intentionally abandoned under m:Right to vanish. He also keeps changing my old userpage to point to my new username [40] [41]. Please let him know that such privacy violations are grounds for banning. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the revisions in question, and protected both the user and talk pages to point to the destinations chosen by the user. If he keeps up with disclosing information, bring it back and we'll try something else. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! :-) —Hanuman Das 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He's identified me by my previous username again: [42] and he's put in a request to unprotect my old userpage [43]. Also, I've opened an RfC for issues related to User:Hamsacharya dan. Attempted intimidation by privacy violation is included. The addition of your comments on this aspect of the situation would be appreciated. —Hanuman Das 12:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:82.45.216.46

This anonymous IP has repeatedly vandalised Economy of Paris in the recent days. Can this anonymous IP be warned and/or blocked? Thank you. Hardouin 13:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The place for these reports is WP:AIV. With that said, I'll take a look. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a slow-burning revert war. If it is a matter of vandalism (that is, if there are sources to back up the version he is reverting away from) then issue a warning on the IP's talk page, and take it to AIV if it continues. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin deleting a page due to (perceived) copyright violation

Admin Petaholmes deleted newly created page Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease claiming it is a copy of http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/caf/pbfd.htm page. It is not, as I have spent quite some time to write it. It does contain the same information as the page I have allegedly copied, but that is because they both deal with the exact same matter.

Mikie 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the proper place to ask for undeletion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please do not try and re-create the article as re-creations can just be speedied. However, I might be being blind or something, but to me I can't see any direct copy and pasting, so you might well be right- this will need to be reviewed by other admins as well. Petros471 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so immediately. Although, I have recreated the page already, as it isn't very practical to say "my page has been deleted cause it looks like this one", if I haven't got my page to show, isn't it?

I have also responded quite rudely to the Petaholmes, and I meant every word of it. I know that is not recommended or tolerated here, but I was mad for all the effort I wasted only for someone to make a judgment in a split second. The admin in question is also from Australia, as I am, and it is half past midnight here. I don't think a decision made at this time of night can be well-considered by anyone.

Mikie 14:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to exist in order to show that it looks like another page. Admins can see deleted articles and edits, so they (we) can judge whether the article was a copyright violation. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, and what is your judgement? Mikie 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to psittacine beak and feather disease (we do not use title case in page names, unless the actual name is in title case). I will reserve my comments on the article's right to exist for deletion review. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

hey, everybody remember when ed poor was de-sysoped?

not to re-open old wounds or anything, but I think somebody forgot to do something, both this, and this, seem to indicate that there is no record of him ever actually having his sysop rights stripped?15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&group=&username=Ed+Poor not in group sysop.

and here is the record Geni 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed was a 'crat also huh? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And a developer I think. Prodego ^talk 15:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must've been some messy situation. Unreal. Say no more I'm sure its been discussed plenty. Thanks for the rely - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Did he de-sysop people as a bcrat? Is that even possible, if not what do the "="s mean? Prodego ^talk 15:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall from reading the reports also wheel warring too and I think WP:PAs?? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you really really have to know start reading here.Geni 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism On Black Metal Article

User:Spearhead has unfortunatly decided to violate an AFD ruling on information on the Black Metal article. The article Troll Metal was placed for AFD sometime ago and its contents merged into the Black Metal article. Recently Spearhead has decided that he wants to delete the section on the basis 'he doesnt like it' even though this violates AFD, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.

I am also on revert parole so i have no intention of running a revert race, but this is vandalism and as such shouldnt be allowed. I tried warning Sceptre [[44]], [[45]].

Spearheads response was report it and see what happens, implying that he is untouchable by admins due to his normally high work and good faith [46], [47]. However Spearheads normal good faith doesnt give him a right to vandalise any page, and as such this should be dealt with appropriatly. Ley Shade 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A general concensus was reached on the BM talk page to remove this and another section as well as it can be considered an act of vandalism to put it back in. As such it has been removed several times by various users. Only Leyasu seems to want to keep this on the BM page as per AFD. I have advised Leyasu to find a proper place to store it or if no such can be found to put it on his user space. Spearhead 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've made an attempt to mediate on this here. As above, the basic problem is that the original Troll metal article was "kept" in an AfD, then later merged into Black metal. Debate has since raged on that talk page and other places about whether it belongs there (or anywhere) as a subsection. I've suggested a couple of things, hopefully something will catch hold. Deizio 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a content RFC needs to be initiated so that such community voice as may be found can be determined. Geogre 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Twilight Jonez

A new user, Twilight Jonez (talk · contribs), has been changing many {{indefblockeduser}} tags into {{NCV}}, and making no other edits whatsoever. This makes me wonder whether Twilight Jonez him/herself is a sockpuppet of NCV. Anybody with further knowledge about this? --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that he is very likely to be NCV. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR by 69.119.83.198

The user 69.119.83.198 has again reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use WP:AN3 for 3RR problems, thanks. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tarkan1st linkspamming

22 linkspams to commercial directories thus far today in mostly geo articles, a sort of "alpha" spam. Three warnings, no replies.--Flawiki 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trollery by User:BIG and IP 84.58.160.210

An odd fellow. Has been extremely disruptive on a article or two, paticularly Colonel (Mega Man) as of late. Has been blocked on occasion for vandalims and personal attacks, and seems to have a severe inability to comprehend consensus and established fact. When provided with sources, he ignores them completely, instead descending to personal attacks and other bits of silliness. Looking at his IP contributions depicts nothing but vandalism of the beforementioned article. After a bit of edit warring and page protection to cease the affair, he assumed the username of BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue disruptive editting, not only limited to Colonel (Mega Man), but others as well [48]. Also needs a crash course in what vertible sources are acceptable at wikipedia. I've no doubt he is simply hardheaded, but is probably doing what he thinks is correct. Regardless, he's engaging in disruption and vandalism, and we don't permit this at wkipedia. -Zero^Talk 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had him blocked for 72 hours block log (after an original 24 hour block for 3RR), another admin blocked for 24, then unblocked, but forget to reblock ...so now I have him blocked for 31 hours...I'll block for a month with community approval.--MONGO 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He's recently just blanked his talkpage [49] of notices and the like. I presume it's clear by now he has no wish to follow policy and carry himself in a acceptable manner. -Zero^Talk 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I'd say go for the month-block. He hasn't contributed anything worthwhile, and I know I at least am tired of him. --maru (talk) contribs 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Damned by his own words [50] [51]. -Zero^Talk 11:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Valuable link deleted as spam. Not spam.

Article: Crystal radio receiver. I added link at bottom in "external links" to one of my "Radio of the Month" pages featuring a crystal radio. Someone keeps deleting it as spam. I'm no spammer. I do have a commercial interest as I am the author of a book on crystal radios, which I sell elsewhere on my web site. Still, should this incidental commerciality ban my valuable and interesting link from the crystal radio receivers page? It would seem that such a policy would ban some of the most knowledgeable people on any subject. Here's the link that keeps getting deleted:

• 1959 Tiny Tim Crystal Radio featured as Radio of the Month on this web site.

I detest spam. But let's not throw out the babies with the bathwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

This spammer has been trying to insert a link to a site that sells books on crystal radios and to one publication in particular this book. I have reverted him several times under the terms of WP:SPAM. His last effort was a trojan horse to the same site: EricWrobbel.com who I suspect the Anon is. We've been down this road before. --DV8 2XL 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This response is from the very person I am having the problem with. I don't know what Anon is?? Or what this means?? Or what trojan horse refers to? I'm not what this overzealous guardian of all Wikipedia apparantly think I am. A spammer? I'm just a little guy trying to improve an article with a link to related info and my book on the subject. That's all. DV8 2XL is way over my head with all this anger and aggression. I tried several ways to link, hoping to satisfy him. I regret that nothing I do seem to meet with his approval. I have read his User Page and it is clear he has a lot of anger about people changing what he writes. I'm sorry for him, but he should not take his frustrations out on others.

I suggest you read WP:SPAM. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Deskana. I have done that. My understanding is that the link is within guidelines and is proper. The guidelines are not so strictly non-commercial as many seem to think. There is much of value out there that would be lost to us if DV8 2XL's overly-zealous reading of commerciality were the correct interpretation of the guideline. It isn't. My link is to my "Radio of the Month," which is a continuing series in which I share with the public photos and info about notable radios from my collection. The commercial aspects of it are minor and in no way color the information or photos presented. To deny it to Wikipedia readers is a disservice to them. Please understand my position

This looks like a content dispute. Not really AN/I material. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you Ryan but he's linking to his own commercial web page. This is pure and simple spamming. --DV8 2XL 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced that the author (Eric Wrobbel) is doing this only for the purposes of spam. Clearly, he knows something about crystal radios, and I'd encourage him to contribute in areas where he has interests (as long as it's not original research). Besides, we shouldn't bite the newcomers. On the other hand, there's a certain gray area about inserting links to your own web site -- I've been tempted to add links to my inline skate club web site under Midtown Greenway and Cedar Lake Trail, but I recognize there's a conflict of interest in that. One other thing: If these books are available from online booksellers other than the author's web site, they can be listed under the ISBN (International Standard Book Number); see Wikipedia:ISBN for details. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and this isn't an official admin-type opinion, but I have this page on my watchlist for some reason.) --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: Only three reverts in a 24-hour period are permitted. There's more than that in the history of Crystal radio receiver. --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that 3RR doesn't apply to de-spamming. If anyone can tell me with a straight face that he was not posting these links in an attempt to drive traffic to his site, and that the site in question is not a commercial one, I have been laboring under the wrong definition of spam. --DV8 2XL 23:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing my point of view. I HAVE contributed to Wikipedia articles--several times to several articles, though I never had a user name before today. This article seems great as is, so I haven't added or changed any content. But felt it could use a link to the great radio I feature on my "Radio of the Month" page. DV8 2XL, I feel WAY too much anger out of you. Bad for your health. Take a cue from this discussion and calm down. You don't have to save the world from me. So, how about it? Will you put my link back up? Are you interested in crystal radios? Because I can assure you that people who are--like me, for example--are very much interested in seeing pictures and info of the sort that my link provides. --Ewrobbel 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing to do with this particular discussion or with crystal radios, but simply as a longtime Wikipedia editor, I need to point out that giving people sarcastic, patronizing "health advice" takes down the civility levle of any discussion. It's not necessary to speak to people that way, and it's certainly not in keeping with the civil tone and acting-in-good-faith presumption that Wikipedia policy encourages. I'm just sayin'. -- Tenebrae 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric Wrobbel, you are adding mendacity to spamming if you claim it was only a desire to improve the article that motivated you to post the first two times to a page where a book you wrote is for sale, on a site run by you selling more of your publications. I watch a number of the electronic/radio-television pages, I'm going to make a special effort now to watch the ones that you might also feel need to be "improved" by a link to your catalogue. --DV8 2XL 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no prior involvement with this dispute, but if you're adding a link to your own site, you might want to think twice about WP:VANITY too. If one side or the other has a burning need to push this issue, file an RfC, and in any case take this content dispute off WP:ANI. Isopropyl 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Even a third opinion might help bring a little resolution to this (since, IMHO, this is a little too murky to be an admin problem). --InShaneee 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I am sorry for the sarcasm. Please understand that I'm REACTING here. DV8 2XL keeps calling me a spammer, name-calling to which I take great offense. And now he is stalking me all over Wikipedia. I have tried treating this person in good faith but he was abusive from the beginning. Why no exhortation to him to act in good faith? I get no benefit of the doubt, no civility, nothing but a high-handed judge-and-jury attitude from DV8 2XL. What am I supposed to do? Just go away? Wikipedia's policy on newcomers is being grossly violated here if that's what you want.--Ewrobbel 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the first several links you inserted are clearly links whose sole purpose is to promote a commercial product with no additional information on the topic. You've had a chance to read the applicable policy; would you agree with that statement? The last link seemed more useful and expanded on the topic somewhat; but it was just a picture with a few paragraphs of text and a link at the end to your catalog/price list. This is still a problem with our external link policy. It is clear that you're into the hobby; it would be wonderful if you added content to the article - we could really use your help and insight. Kuru ^talk 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question; when you say "now he is stalking me all over Wikipedia", can you give some examples of other places he has stalked you? I only see edits here and at the mediation cabal, which are intended as discussion points for your dispute at Crystal radio receiver. Kuru ^talk 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kuru, your statement is correct. You are right about my first link attempts. I was wrong. About adding to the article, I don't see anything to add to the crystal radio article. I added a great deal to the article on "Transistor Radios," repairing many major errors a few months back. You can see those in the history (January 3--I didn't have a user name at that point). About other places DV8 2XL has deleted my links: he has deleted them from that "transistor radios" article (further links and reading--I just put back the reading one but without a link. Probably DV8 2XL will delete that too). And he has deleted my link from the Wikipedia article "Walkman" to my "Radio of the Month" page dealing exclusively with the Walkman. I can't think of any other place I've put any links. I was going to put one on the Television article to my television "Radio of the Month" but I don't think I did. I remember thinking my link was too specialized for a general article on television. --Ewrobbel 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The links that were placed in the other articles were more spam to your site and in clear violation of Policy. --DV8 2XL 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether my links are spam or not is the question. DV8 2XL's use of the prejudicial term "spam" begs the question. DV8 2XL is advised that his views are abundantly clear and is asked to refrain from prejudicial language and from intimidation and to allow others here to express their views. I very much want to hear them.--Ewrobbel 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved 3rd party opinion: Could not be a more clear-cut case of link spam. Violates WP:EL #s 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9. If I saw it, I would nuke it immediately with justification. RadioKirk talk to me 16:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, thank you for your input. I hear you and have read the material you cite. Perhaps mentioning my two books on crystal radios under a "Reading" heading would be acceptable, if a direct link to my "Radio of the Month" page is not. I've added that Reading section and would appreciate your thoughts on whether this is OK. My books are self-published so there is no ISBN number and no way to get them except through my site. But I have not used a link because, if I understand your position correctly, linking to the place where my books can be purchased is against policy, even if the ISBN thing is not available as in the case of a self-published work. Do I understand you correctly? --Ewrobbel 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable; my first thought would be, simply listing the book would not be a problem if you can demonstrate that you're a recognized expert in the field (that's usually a requirement for a listing with an ISBN number, as well), since that would then require the reader to do his/her own research into finding the book. Unfortunately, real-world, you're still better served finding a publisher anyway. Best to you! RadioKirk talk to me 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

GFDL question

Seabhcan has copied and pasted Collapse of the World Trade Center into his userspace as User:Seabhcan/Collapse of the World Trade Center. It seems to me that, by separating the edit history from the content, the new page violates the GFDL. Is that the case, or am I just being difficult? Is it okay as long as it stays in user space? It seems like the GFDL could be satisfied by adding a link back to the main article. There's some discussion as well at User talk:Seabhcan/Collapse of the World Trade Center. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of policy on Userpages is that "work in progress" pages are permitted. Seabhcán 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding doesn't apply if he plans on copying and pasting any changes he makes back into the article, expecially (sic) if there have been further changes made since he copied it into his user space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. My concern is that the page in Seabhcán's userspace, as it is now, does not credit its authors as the license requires. Is there another issue instead/as well? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I won't do that. Seabhcán 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your remarks [52] where you say, "Thats a good idea too. Why don't we do it here?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL issue is a big deal if the intention is to rework the article in userspace and then copy and paste it into the main article, especially if there are quantifiable changes made in the main article. My complaint certers on the fact that consensus wasn't reached in the main article, so the article was copied and userfied to try and superscede concensus. Absolutely egregious behavior...an admin should know better.--MONGO 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how copying and pasting the changes back into the article matters, as when he pastes them back in his changes will be logged. I'm also quite confused about your comment that it's especially so if major changes are made in the article. I don't see how this is any more a GFDL violation than copying the article into an offline text editor and copying pieces of that back in. If your concern is that the authors aren't cited, then that's hardly insurmountable: provide a link to the article's history or copy the history into the talk page (which is what we do when we update our help pages from Meta). Snoutwood (tóg) 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This editor attempted to insert items in said article and was rebuffed by the concensus of editors there. He then moved it to his userspace. The article is a constant source of attempts to insert unscientific "evidence" and unproven allegations with the cry of NPOV, when in fact, citing such innuendos is an egregious violation of NPOV.--MONGO 06:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. So it's not a GFDL question, it's a NPOV question. Snoutwood (tóg) 06:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I contest it as a POV fork issue...Tom Harrison was, mainly asking the question, about whether it violates the GFDL. Either way, since the concensus there seemed to be against inclusion of some of the items he questioned, and the article discussion page is constantly being bombarded with commentary that has no supporting documetation, much like a blog, it is a contentious article, and things really should be hammered out on the discusion page. Had it been an article that wasn't always being reverted etc., it would be a lot easier to contrue the movement to userspace as a good faith effort to truly build a NPOV article.--MONGO 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to work with the article and then link it to the original talk page and ask for comments. I have done this several times in the past, notably with "Metrication", which is now FA. Seabhcán 10:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Editor...Administrator Seabhcán has now commenced engaging in personal attacks: [53]--MONGO 12:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Mongo and I have been engaged in an edit war over the use of references, fact and opinion on articles related to the 9/11 attacks. Mongo has now seen fit to broaden the conflict to this page. For anyone thats interested, I can counter his diff above with this and this. But this is really getting childish, isn't Mongo? Lets keep out fights to the approapiate talk pages. Seabhcán 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Metrication I think it's worth noting that when you did that there was an objection and you were reverted because of the attribution credit that the GFDL requires, the editor then overwrote the old version. [54] I don't see how that is an option here considering that there is disagreement about what (if any) changes should be made. It looks to me like a plain old POV fork. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That was not a question of content, but question of whether a page move or a copy-and-paste was appropriate. That user decided that copy-and-paste was better. Tom Harrison thinks that it is not. In any case, for the sake of peace and a quiet life, I have blanked the page and I will edit from scratch.Seabhcán 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seabhcán has blanked the page; I appreciate his willingness to compromise on something he feels strongly about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit Protect on HoY

• Can House of Yahweh please be semi-protected? A bunch of anon IPs continue to re-add the same PoV diatribe into the article regardless of how many times we revert. Thanks - pm_shef 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's neccisarily POV, but it does appear to be unverified and there's no real attempt at discussion on the anon's part. Semi-protected for the time being. --InShaneee 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, requests for protection should go to WP:RfPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:BatBoyBats1000, User:Tomorrow Is For Losers, User:I Love Adam Sandler

I realize this is a bit unusual but Im asking you to block these names (all my sockpuppets) because I did irreperable damage to the Snakes of River Bend, Mississippi page through edits containing my childish vandalism. They say confession is good for the soul, so I hope this worksHey!! 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... none of those user accounts seem to exist, nor the article you claim to have vandalized, nor the town of River Bend, Mississippi. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this user as another instance of the odd AN:I troll. --InShaneee 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Rural_Hall

I have permablocked Rural Hall (talk · contribs), who has been spending today adding the NCV tag to loads of User pages. These are this user's only edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that the user's first edit was changing NCV's LTA page from severity "moderate" to "high." --Rory096 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure User:Tobaccoville, who joined just after you blocked Rural Hall, is him also. --Rory096 02:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But he's adding the tag to user pages of people who indeed have been permablocked for vandalism, mainly the Communism vandal. I thought it a bit puzzling when I noticed it, but I didn't think he was doing any harm. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • He's a brand new user, and he has no verification that these people are really the sockpuppets that he says they are. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • That's the North Carolina vandal himself: he loves to brag about his vandalism sprees and tag his own sockpuppets. Block at will. I'm thinking we should remove his trophy cabinet, i.e. the list of sockpuppets on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I would have no problem with that, nor with removing the NCV template. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You guys should look at WP:DENY. --Rory096 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks! I knew I'd seen that page, but could not remember what it was called. That's exactly the point. Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... all of these (Rural Hall, Tobaccoville, etc.) are towns nearby Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where I live. If I ever see this guy on Wikipedia in a local library, I'm gonna kick him. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles and copyrights

Please visit the talk and through in your two cents. User is claiming copyright violation to get criticism removed. He does not assert to be the copyright owner nor does he have proof that it is a copyright violation. Arbusto 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like mostly trolling IMHO, especially since the user claims that there's no proof that the mp3's aren't 'faithful reproductions of the original broadcast'. --InShaneee 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting immediate action

Due to new threats left on my talk page and other locations[55] and "outing" of my real life identity[56][57], I request that immediate action be taken agains Israelbeach (talk · contribs). I caution Israelbeach that if he should make any attempt to contact me in the real world outside of Wikipedia, I will take the necessary legal action to protect myself. I am taking the matter up to arbitration, and as of now relinquish my duties as sysop and will no longer be making any non-related contributions to Wikipedia until the matter of Israelbeach is resolved. --Woggly 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the call for immediate action. I did chastise Israelbeach for posting the information, and he kinda-halfway removed it while announcing to the world where it could be found; I was lenient only because I've been involved (I've confirmed Woggly's RFC against him and gave some advice on its content), otherwise I'd have blocked him immediately for disruption and harassment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, pending an apology and Woggly's acceptance of that apology. I'm in the process of deleting the revisions now. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this action. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm imposing another block over the top of this one, for violation of WP:NLT: [58]. The block is indefinite while legal threats are outstanding. --bainer (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Israelbeach Vs. Woggly

In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!

Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."

Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.

Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.

Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.

Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.

I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators (with the exception of user:jpgordon) who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting this message on my suggestion on how to resolve this matter on other pages. Nancetlv 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• You posted this like, 10 places or so? Please don't do that. Once was enough; twice was maybe OK. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked a bunch of accounts that I believe were sock or meat puppets of Israelbeach (talk · contribs), whose most recent edit was to leave this legal threat on his talk page. I've blocked Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs), Davidstone (talk · contribs), Bluegrasstom (talk · contribs), Idf-barak (talk · contribs), Cymruisrael (talk · contribs), and Nancetlv (talk · contribs). I've also protected their talk pages and Israelbeach's to make sure the harassment of Woggly stops. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Memon and Lohana =

The 80.92.54.101 has been reverting Memon and Lohana pages. Siddiqui 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN3 Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO (talk · contribs)

I think we have a real problem here, LIBERAL POV WARRIORS AND OTHER LEFTIST SCUM KEEP ATTACKING THIS PERSON FOR NO REASON AND NO ADMINS ARE WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS CONSTANTLY LEVELED AGAINST HIM! I'ts a disgrace that you allow these liberal scumhats to attack a person, who is nothing if not a perfect example of adminhood and an insperation to us all, the next person who threatens him SHOULD BE INDEF BANNED WITH NO HOPE OF PAROLE--Wopwop 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1) Mongo is more than capable of taking care of himself and bringing things here if he thinks there is a problem. 2) How are we supposed to tell what you are talking about when you don't provide any specific difs? 3) Talking in all caps is a good way for people to take you less seriously. 4) You don't seem to have any edits other than to this announcement, which makes you likely to be somoene's sockpuppet. 5) chill. JoshuaZ 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

6)WP:CIVIL. 7) WP:NPA. KimvdLinde 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 12 hours for disruption...either a vandal, sock or possible strawman anyway.--MONGO 18:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • MONGO, you're an insperation to us all. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
    • I am often insperied by MONGO. --Syrthiss 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Way to smite that "scumhat" (!?) Isopropyl 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Isn't the L-word spelled "libbrul"? Bishonen | talk 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • I always think with the L-word on a sexual orientation for women... KimvdLinde 03:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not all women are liberals (just the informed and compassionate ones). Geogre 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Long live International Working Class Day! El_C 02:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Marry me! Bishonen | talk 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC).
  • I do! I mean, I will! I love it when the woman proposes! El_C 02:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Knock it off or I'll block you all for violating WP:NPA (no personal affection). JDoorjam Talk 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall we disscussed a simlar policy. I think the general consensus was that such behaviour would be tollerated.Geni 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know... there are all kinds of interesting ways to create a WP:CABAL... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is (and it explicitly forbids marriage proposals). This is not WeLikeEachOtherpedia, people. If everybody gets along, there won't be any edit wars, and then, without 3RRs to block, we admins will be out of a job. Please consider the ramifications of your getting along so well. JDoorjam Talk 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But I have to propose to El C on International Working Class Day! What am I, a block of stone? If it helps, I'll propose to MONGO as well. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I accept...Yaba daba do! Oh, you're probably just kidding...and I was just starting to feel insperetionel too.--MONGO 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it a day late anyway? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations and article stuffing by User:Dhwani1989

Please help. This user appears to be a sock or political operative. A review of Dhwani1989's edits makes clear a pattern of CopyVio issues. See User:Dhwani1989 talk page history - deleting warnings left and right. What can be done? Merecat 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything since he was warned that he may be blocked. If he does neutralise him.Geni 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. If anyone wants to play the good cop see his talk page.Geni 01:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

block pulled. He's said he isn't going to upload any more images.Geni 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Community ban for Licinius

The original Licinius edited pages related to various codes of football in Australia. He aggressively and inflexibly pushed a strange POV and refused to work towards consensus. He abused and frustrated numerous good faith editors who were trying to work on the related pages (see Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates)). Eventually he spawned sockpuppets User:The man from OZ and User:J is me to help him with a vote at Talk:Football, and was blocked after being caught out by a checkuser request.

User then spawned numerous abusive socks. To my knowledge, the current list of socks of Licinius created solely to abuse people is: Jisme, HahaJISME, HahahaJISME, John Ignolius Magnum, Whortyfour, Revenge clone1, Who but you is popo, Yeah what and why, OKEYJisme, Popoff567, J IS ME FEELS NEGLECTED, J IS ME CONQUERS ALL, Is J is Me or are you her, Is J is her or are you me?, Collins1921, The Return OF J IS ME, Await the return, The second man in wiki, Rufus4444444 and Fucck J is me.

Yesterday Licinius returned to the football pages as Mr nice guy. He pushed the same strange POV in the same aggressive manner, and has stated that he has no intention of working towards consensus [59]. The responses of other editors indicates just how sick of this situation they all are.

I have blocked Mr nice guy indefinitely, subject of course to review by other administrators. He returned as Mr nice guy2 and was blocked again. Its pretty likely I'll be blocking more socks of Licinius in future. I'd appreciate some community support here. How do you all feel about imposing a "users who exhaust the community's patience" ban on this user? Snottygobble 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looking through it, would not oppose an indef community block. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-05-01)
• No objections. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Is this the same person that left this odd message [60] on my talk page immediately after I reverted vandalism on Ambi's talk page ([61])? I had a feeling this was part of a bigger problem. By all means block: there's no reason we have to put up with this. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, one and the same. Snottygobble 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - I@n ≡ talk 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as well. Petros471 09:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• OK - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree...but note that this user is indefinitely blocked, so our remedy is a permanent ban, not a block. Ral315 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support ... what exactly is the difference between a block and a ban, though? --Cyde Weys 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Banning policy ("A ban is not the same as a block, which is used to enforce bans but also for other purposes, such as dealing with vandalism...). Petros471 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that he is exhausting people's patience, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea of a ban. It seems to me that he has come back this time trying to make a new start, be reasonable and stick within the rules. The exhausting thing now is that he has a really twisted argument. JPD (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, objection noted. I grant that this incarnation is editing articles rather than abusing people, but I don't consider the edits an attempt to "be reasonable and stick within the rules". This user is repeatedly inserting and reverting to POV material that he knows has been rejected by the editing community numerous times. Snottygobble 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of article

Hi,

After numerous people have been urging me to post my biographical details on Wikipedia, I did so in a factual way. It got a notice for deletion, because of a vanity issue. However, I am internationally known, have innumerable accomplishments, and it is easy to verify by doing a google search under my name. I just put down details in a factual way. It was not so much as a vanity piece, as much as since I am well known (more so than a number of people listed) that if a posting were to be made, that I could at least insure that it was factually correct, and both interesting and insightful.

Yours sincerely,

Al Seckel

You can look up my page that I posted, and you can check it out by doing a google search under my name which will bring up literally pages and pages of references to me.

Thanks again.

you can reach me at: (email excluded)

I removed the tag for you, that is the way to contest a prod deletion. Note that the page might be put through AfD still. Prodego ^talk 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Block request

Could someone have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whaleto?

This RFC is winding down toward a request for blocking User:Whaleto on grounds including long-running incivility, breach of WP:AGF, and personal attacks (including attacks hosted off-wiki at his own website).

Pertinent policy: WP:BP 1.6 Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and WP:BP 1.10: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. Tearlach 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin: Please note this is a hot RfC that this is now attempting to pre-empt a stepwise process jumpting to a messy end. The policy cited is very new. I am an independent 3rd party in the RfC trying to stop a running fight from becoming a war where there are several larger Wiki issues at stake, with an outside hope of winding to a constructive answer rather than just amputation at the neck. I request that you spend a good several hours researching, looking at this mess before acting prematurely. The requestor above is a long active disputant (see Tearlach and Midgely).--66.58.130.26 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know anything about the issue itself, but I'm not sure where your statement the Policy cited is very new comes from. It isn't, hopefully it doesn't take much common sense to realise why using blocks to prevent people disrupting wikipedia is quite normal. However RFCs are requests for comments they aren't able to directly impose bans etc. --pgk^(talk) 08:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A partisan "bums rush" to block started with discovery of very recent additions to Wiki policies, still poorly evolved/defined/tested, about commentary, "attacks" if you will, in external websites, when some of us are still trying to salvage collaboration with the individual, who is currently not very active beyond several user/talk/RfC edits a day. There is a more fundamental set of issues underneath about minority contributors and the situation is very fragile and missteps will be detrimental to a number of editors. I think the RfC should conclude in several days and try to resolve a number of issues including other parties affected without the "nuclear option" just inflaming the situation. Alienation could only make the situation worse and the relevant policy needs maturation and definition. Actually I think the new policy on external commentary really needs its own RfC just to improve the definition of rights, as well as responsiblity. Thanks for your patient attention.--66.58.130.26 10:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Try WP:RFAR instead. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've misunderstood how the system works, then. The intro to WP:BP implies that anyone can apply for a block if policies are being violated: All users may post block requests at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or the other venues listed below. This can result in quick action where credible evidence of policy violations is provided. However, admins are never obligated to place a block.

66.58.130.26's argument comes down to special pleading: asking that a serial violator of multiple policies be tolerated, on grounds that he behaves this way because everyone is krool to him because of his minority viewpoint. This is not the case: we're talking about someone who appears incapable of posting without insults, personal attacks and claims of bad faith. Tearlach 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Partly depends on how egregious one thinks more numerous counterparties cumulative behavior is. (I have not been involved with these parties before this RfC 11 days ago but have been generally aware of the problems several months). I simply think that the RfC process needs to complete without external disruption and if given the chance to work it out, that there is a real possibility of substantial improvement. Other editors, with polar points of view and some pretty aggressive actions, subject of discussion in other RfCs, are apparently eager for a conveniently long/permanent block/ban on the individual, taking kill shots if you will (too bad, you're dead - no retrial needed), also helps maintain superior numbers. I know because I'm having to soak up the damage right now even though I am greatly overmatched on experience and numbers.--66.58.130.26 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:ShuhornOplenty8

I have blocked ShuhornOplenty8 (talk · contribs) for one week. He/she has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images without any copyright information, has repeatedly ignored pleas on his talk page, and when I gave him a last warning, instead of complying, he blanked his Talk page and continued uploading. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland page

I have a newbie who does not understand sourcing or NPOV policies on wikipedia. She is User:Joan53. She has been consistently reverting good faith edits on the Maryland wikipedia page....note her contributions and subsequent arguing on other entries. She needs to understand the rules and also calm down. Her agenda is obvious and agendas/bias of any kind has no place here. She does not deal in verifiable info or facts in general. WillC 02:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Telling her that you "yawn in (her) general direction" is not exactly the sort of thing that helps a new editor feel like part of the community, which is what is going to need to happen if you want her to invest time into learning the policies of the project. It's true: for all of us, our first 100 edits were probably some of our worst. But be patient, and don't bite the newbies. And, incidentally, you've more than violated WP:3RR on Maryland: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. While telling others to stay in line with Wiki policies, please make sure you do so yourself. JDoorjam Talk 03:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson

This edit by KymeSnake (talk · contribs) displays the characteristic beliefs and syntax of Iasson, who has been continually attempting to impose his (solitary and unsourced) belief that Greek slavery was somehow not really slavery. Should this be noted at WP:RCU? Septentrionalis 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you think there is concrete evidence to prove as such, go ahead. Sockpuppets of banned users are blocked once discovered, and the ban timer reset. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• This doesn't quite look like an obvious Iasson sock to me, though I guess it's possible. Since he's already blocked, I suppose we should see how he responds to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Dale Scott copyright violation

So I tagged Peter Dale Scott as a copyvio a week ago.. it was pretty much an exact copy of Scott's official web page. User:Brainhell is the user who copied the page into Wikipedia. Despite the fact that diffs show his edit [62] was almost identical to Scott's page [63], Brainhell claims that his edit was "SUBSTANTIALLY different from Scott's page, in non-trivial ways", and therefore he now owns the copyright to his edit. In truth, he just switched around a few words. I've reached my limit with this user; he refuses to entertain the possibility that he may not understand how copyright works. Could someone else go over the discussion on Talk:Peter Dale Scott and talk to him please?

One thing you should know, another Wikipedian e-mailed Scott about his page's copyright. Scott responded by posting a noncommercial-only license on his page, which is still GFDL-incompatible. Brainhell doesn't understand this point either, and he now believes that Scott has relinquished his copyright entirely. Rhobite 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only way we can use any text verbatim is if it is in the public domain. Non-commercial licenses are not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright policy, and unless we can get evidence that the page is released under the GFDL, a compatible free license, or in the public domain, we cannot copy it. It is a copyvio, whether it is plagiarized outright or just paraphrased it without citing the original source.

A further note: Wikipedians agree to release their contributions under the GFDL. There's even a nice link just below the edit window as a reminder. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I already know that, I was wondering if someone else could talk to Brainhell. Rhobite 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't, I'm afraid, because I've tried talking to this user before. He has demonstrated ... mmm... unusual inflexibility over the User:Lucky 6.9 business. Lucky left the project because of what he and some other people perceived as implacable persecution over a rather minor matter by Brainhell. Lucky's departure appears to please Brainhell, though he still worries about the fact that Lucky isn't deadminned as well. Many users tried to speak to Brainhell over that. My advice would be to not waste your breath, but go straight to the next step, whatever it may be (I haven't reviewed the actual page involved). Bishonen | talk 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

User:Dominick

Linkspam violation on article Rosary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 03:16, 1 May 2006
• Reversion: Revision as of 12:34, 1 May 2006

Brought to you by the fine people at fisheaters, the one time prolific linkspammer. I found someone had added an Anglican commercial site. A frequent blanker removed the link. I readded it, since it wasn't a problem for one commercial link and they kept calling it MY link. I ignored it, some people look for any reason to troll until I found one of the blankers made this very complaint. My RFC that was filed in response to the one I filed on the fisheaters website owner would give you more insight into this sick sad tale. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a case of sour grapes. But that link is undoubtedly commercial and I would not include it myself even though I see no obvious alternative source of images of Anglican rosaries. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats why I left it. Thanks Guy! Dominick ^(TALK) 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Chattyman890

Chattyman890 (talk • contribs)- vandalism only account. Recently vandalised Adolf Hitler with this. User has been warned several times. I'm just wondering whether people would support an indefinite block on this user... I'm new to blocking, and don't want to go indefinite blocking a user only to find that I shouldn't have done it. Advice, anyone? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not new at it, so I did it. I have no idea what official policy is in this regard, but registered accounts that do nothing but vandalize get indefinite blocks from me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reporting such cases to WP:AIV instead is strongly recommended. Cheers! - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked before, still floods history logs

66.208.251.88 (talk • contribs) Nothing but vandalism, but not enough at once to get the AiVs attention. Posts things like "poop" and reverts them for half an hour. Got me to warn an innocent anon with a similar IP today. Very annoying. Does he/she (who am I kidding, girls have better things to do) qualify for a perma-block? --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked 3 times before, since it appears to be a static and non shared IP I'd suggest a one week block to stem the tide in which time hopefully the person behind it will start contributing usefully. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fourth time's a charm... --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 14:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), indefinitely blocked by request of the ArbCom is editing pages under the IP 216.194.4.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (evidence: [64]). Can an administrator impose a block please? Thanks! Demiurge 19:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Laranja has repeatedly created empty articles

They created articles with similar names, adding another exclamation mark to the article name for each new one.

1. 21:20, 1 May 2006 Orange on wheels!!!!!!!!! (65 bytes) . . Laranja (Talk | contribs) (ORANGE ON WHEELS!)

...

1. 21:20, 1 May 2006 Orange on wheels!! (65 bytes) . . Laranja (Talk | contribs) (ORANGE ON WHEELS!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Laranja --BNutzer 20:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Deb has already dealt with it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

just a note: the name Laranja catches my eye as L'Aranja, or The Orange, in any number of romance languages. You may want to be on the lookout for -orange-related articles, from similar users. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

*smacks forehead* Oh, duh! How'd I miss that?! RadioKirk talk to me 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluffy999

Despite repeated warnings to stop, and a link to WP:CIVIL, a new user, Fluffy999 has proceeded to post personal abuse against User:Damac, a long-standing and credible contributor, including posting lies on personal users' pages about Damac's edits, accusing him of bogus edits, making personal attacks, more attacks, posting a comment with an edit summary of Damac the Blunderer strikes again, etc.

Appeals to Fluffy to stop just produces more agressive abuse. At this stage someone needs to intervene. I can't as I was involved in trying to correct some of Fluffy's dodgy edits. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

fluffy eh? who else thought of this when they read this? Image:Killer_rabbit.JPG--152.163.100.65 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy has completely out of control at this stage with his attacks. (None of us can for the life of us see what he is complaining about! He produces as "evidence" links that are empty or show the exact opposite of what he claims, then accuses Damac of lies, dishonesty, yada yada yada.) But his abuse of Damac got so severe that after issuing a number of warnings to stop I ended up blocking him. The guy has a serious problem. Whether he is a troll or merely someone with a mental illness that impaired his judgment is up to guesswork — though my gut feeling was the former — but Damac did nothing to deserve all the personal attacks and diatribes. I would have left the blocking to someone else if I could find them but I couldn't find an admin and something needed to be done immediately. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indefinite block considering the repeated attacks and abuse from this "fluffy". It's definitely warranted and WP:AGF only goes so far when this user is blatantly trolling another user and abusing other editors despite repeated attempts to work with him/her and work with him/her. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with indefinite block right now, has only been blocked once before and that only for 24 hours. Give him a longer block, but is not yet up to the point for an indefinite block. JoshuaZ 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fresh call for Arbitration enforcement

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Instantnood_.28May_1.29 This link details a fresh set of disruptive editing by User:Instantnood in violation of his Arbitration Committee sanctions. An admin should go take a look. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Henry Flower

User:Henry Flowerrepeatedly deleted the NPA tag from his talkpage following his personal attack with absolutely no explanations.--Bonafide.hustla 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So..? Sorry, I don't understand what you're doing, Bonafide.hustla. The "personal attack" is highly dubious. Since you link, on Henry Flower's page, to a whole conversation, rather than give a diff, I'm not even sure which bit is supposed to be a personal attack. The NPA tag is intended to be used for very clear cases only. Please don't add frivolous tags to people's userpages. Also, your tag has no greater authority than if you'd written something in your own voice; Henry Flower is perfectly entitled to remove either kind from his page. Don't edit war to keep your posts on somebody else's page, unless you want to get blocked. Also, why exactly do you care if he removes it? You put it there for him to read, didn't you? See, his removal of it shows he has read it. You should be pleased. And you shouldn't harass people. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

The personal attack occured on the admin's noticeboard.--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So give us a link. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cairo University repeatedly vandalized

Someone has repeatedly removed information on Saddam Hussein and Mohamed Atta from this site. I have left warnings (see [65] for a log of my actions), but since it hasn't been the same IP address twice, I don't know what to do. Oh, and someone from a similar IP address (I think they're all from Africa) vandalized my user page. [66] Jessesamuel 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just keep reverting them. I've watchlisted the article myself so you won't be alone. If many IPs attack an article in a short space of time (like a day) it can be semi-protected, but the article isn't close to that point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

context?--64.12.116.65 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is already empty. There are people watching it and taking care of it regularly.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse: User:Bhadani

User:Hamsacharya dan filed a false 3RR report [67] which does not fit the criteria for a 3RR violation. Next, User:Bhadani, who is involved in a disagreement with User:Hanuman Das on another article Gurunath [68] and should have let another admin deal with the complaint, blocked User:Hanuman Das for a week, even though the complaint is invalid [69] and even if it were valid would be a first offence and not worthy of a week block. Please investigate and unblock. Also, there is a valid 3RR complaint agaist User:Hamsacharya dan here [70]. User:Bhadani's statements on the two complaints show that he is taking sides based on content rather than applying rules fairly. Thanks. —192.35.232.241 15:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments posted temporarily on article "Nigger"

I saw on the "Nigger" article there was an offensive comment posted by user: 144.75.129.32

See [71]

The user changed the opening line "Niggers, also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.) ..." to "Ass slamming Niggers have big cocks , also spelled niger (obs.), nigor (obs. dial. Eng.) ..." and then reverted the change 20 minutes later.

Regards, Alex

By most standards "Xs are well endowed and are on the giving end of anal sex" is a compliment, though the choice of article does confuse it somewhat. The user reverted his own edit (apart from forgetting to remove the 's' from the opening 'nigger'), so I've left {{selftest}} on his talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User Circumventing Blocks

Braaad (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Guanaco for vandalism, abusive edits and sock puppetry. Currently he is using 68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs) and possibly another sock puppet with Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) (I have a week-old CheckUser request to find out...). See his RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Braaad as well as the edits made by his sock puppets:

• T`sitra Yel Darb (talk · contribs) (also blocked by Guanaco)
• Henry the Eighth (talk · contribs) (blocked by Nlu)
• Vinnie von Go (talk · contribs) (blocked by Curps)
• 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs) (should be blocked)

Thanks. McNeight 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:68.115.72.93 was unblocked by User:Pgk as "collateral damage" and hasn't made an edit for a week. User:68.112.201.90 has not made an edit since 19 December 2005. "Banned user evading block" aside, may I ask if there's a pressing issue that I didn't see that suggests something problematic with waiting for the WP:RCU? RadioKirk talk to me 16:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically pressing? No. The fact that one user has been allowed to continue to be abusive towards other users and administrators (specifically, in this case, towards Jeffery O. Gustafson, Pgk, as well as additional stress for User:Pilotguy and User:Titoxd while trying to deal with this person) just irks me. Add to that the fact that this person only pops up from under a rock on occasion, and depends on the sloth of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process to do "hit and run" abuse just adds to the frustration. Wait all you want to, but he'll be back with yet another sock and more abuse to be heaped upon some other unsuspecting administrator. McNeight 18:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By all appearances, User:Lady Jane Grey needs patience and civility, but the sum total of evidence that I can find suggesting the user is a sockpuppet of user:Braaad is the original block itself, reversed later as "collateral damage". Unless you have diffs that can show me what I'm missing, it seems to me that any remedy should come via the unblocking admin, not here. RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

Without the benefit of a CheckUser, I am going on my "gut", however:

• The first edit from 68.115.72.93 (talk · contribs) involved the RfC against Braaad.
• The first edit from Lady Jane Grey (talk · contribs) was 2 days after the other sock puppets were banned.
• LJG shares a fascination with userboxes, flags and Vincent van Gogh that the rest of Braaad's sock puppets have shown ([72], [73], [74] [75])
• All users in question have never made a useful contribution to Wikipedia. They'll sit and polish their user page, maybe upload an image or two, but never seem to get around to editing an actual article. You can check the contributions for all involved for proof.
• Braaad (talk · contribs) does still use the IP address in question, otherwise he wouldn't have posted this.

So, I'm attempting to follow WP policies on reporting abuse without going rogue or violating WP:POINT. Do what you will. McNeight 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I've left a note for User:Pgk; hope this will do. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked user Ndru01 evading block

User:Ndru01 was blocked for 24h: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01, after breaking 3RR on one article and recreating deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism.

S/he has now recreated same content at Gnostic Infomysticism apparently using User:Infoandru01. --Cedders^tk 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've userfied the article as it clearly falls under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). Also subject to anonymous editing from 209.135.116.202 and 64.187.60.61 (both Bell Canada). --Cedders^tk 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mannaseejah

greetings. i'm in need of a bit of intervention. this mainly stems from a dispute at the Manna page. A User, at times the anonymous IP User talk:136.245.4.252 or User talk:208.47.97.198, other times User:Mannaseejah. the user continually posts strange religious (an unencyclopedic) rants and posts strange pictures. the user has been asked to stop on numerous occasions and now he/she is posting their weird rants on my talk page, User Talk:Sparsefarce. this person is starting to scare me, not to mention get on my nerves. [76], [77], and (more or less blanking of a talk page with the rant) are some examples. [78] is the rant he put on my talk page. any intervention would help. thanks! Sparsefarce 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sima Qian

202.156.6.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been insisting on an edit at Sima Qian (and a similar edit at Laozi) which rejects modern scholarship in favour of ancient sources. Nlu (talk · contribs) has stepped in and protected the article after the anon's last edit, which was this — deleting the whole of the second part of the article together with all readings, references, external links, categories, interwikis, etc. Nlu seems to have abandoned the article, leaving it protected. Would it be unacceptable for me to revert, given the vandalistic edit that's been frozen in place? If it would, could someone else do so, or unprotect the article so that I can do it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that's vandalism, and have saved you the trouble. :) Henry^Flower 22:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I have indefinitely blocked another user, Jeremy77q (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do you think this is a reasonable action, or was I being too harsh? - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... only four edits? Perhaps a short 24 block would have been better. You could always turn it into an indefinite later... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed—even three hours might do. With such a short history, it could have been someone at a friend's house with a few too many minutes on his hands. RadioKirk talk to me 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have decreased the block length. I guess this is an approppriate time to report some of my earlier indefinite blocks: Monkeypuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an inappropriate username (possibly related to Horsepoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked by Redvers), and HORNDONLAINGS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being an abusive sockpuppet (clearly created to disrupt). - Mike Rosoft 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My own thoughts: "Monkeypuke" is bad, but not horrible; consider asking the user to change it (only one edit, BTW, no history to gauge). Same with "Horsepoo" (possible vandal account, but only four edits; I'd say lift block, ask user to change name, and watch. RadioKirk talk to me 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, I am not going to unblock User:Horsepoo; his history of uploading nonsense images for vandalism is evidence of it being a vandal account. As for User:Monkeypuke, I guess he can be unblocked and requested to change the username instead (that is, unless it can be verified that he has edited from the same IP address as Horsepoo), but I don't think he's coming back. - Mike Rosoft 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad on User:Horsepoo, I forgot to look at the logs. As for User:Monkeypuke, I think we can WP:AGF for the moment. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, do what you will. (I hope at least User:HORNDONLAINGS was an obvious case for an indefinite block.) - Mike Rosoft 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It was. Well done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

KarateKid7, TheMadTim

I responded to a 3RR report at WP:AN3 between two seeming revert warriors (KarateKid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), TheMadTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)) assuming bad faith. I blocked them both for 24 hours. Tawker undid my block on KarateKid7 a few hours later, which is fine by me, as I was planning to anyway per an email conversation I had with him. However, soon, a new factor entered the mix: TheMADTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I noticed this guy blank KarateKid7's UT page, and I gave him an indef block on the spot. Mackensen (talk • contribs) was kind enough to perform a checkuser on the gentleman in question. "Likely that TheMADTim is a sockpuppet of KarateKid7. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" I'm now not sure what to do with the situation, and I ask for a community decision here. It would seem that KarateKid7 registered TheMADTim to defame TheMadTim, and here I was assuming good faith with him and actually favored his take of the content dispute (which both parties insisted was simple vandalism and not a dispute). Any opinions out there? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Now I've uncovered Karatekid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), permablocked 14:44, March 21, 2006. Lowercase's first edit? 22:01, March 22, 2006. I'm leaning to a permablock as a sockpuppet of a permablocked user. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)