User:1B6 has posted on my talk page ([1]) (3 days ago, but since the last time I checked Wikipedia) asking to be blocked. That user then vandalised their own userpage ([2]) and talkpage ([3]), and reverted the vandalism on their own userpage with a note implying that the account has been compromised ([4]). I'm reporting the issue here now, but as the user has not edited for almost 2 days this probably isn't urgent. --ais523 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For several weeks now a highly aggressive and partisan new contributor, Raspor, has been causing serious disruption at Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Discovery Institute as well as various user talk pages. This prompted me to file a user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor, where there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate against his behavior. He has dismissed the community's input and is now attempting to expand his disruption with petty trolling: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] He's exhausted the community's patience, as recent comments on my talk page and the RFC talk page indicate.

Considering the disruption he's caused over the last 72 hours and his unwillingness to moderate his behavior despite many past warnings and kindlier efforts, something needs to be done to get his attention. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support either a community ban in general (given his increasing incivility) or a topic ban on articles related to creationism and evolution in the broad sense. A week or so ago I favoured the latter, but he has now moved to trolling user talk pages. I am now in favour of a community ban. Guettarda 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. This guy has done very little but troll in the time he's been here. I recommend a lengthy block - maybe 72 hours, or even a week - and for it to be made absolutely clear to him that what he is doing is just not on. Mind you, if anyone wants to block indef, I won't be calling for your desysopping. I can just about envisage this fellow turning into a decent editor, but it's a stretch. Block now and the next time he trolls kick him out for good. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a block. However, given that the user has only one previous block- a standard 3RR block, an indefinite block at this point seems uncalled for. I would recommend some block time between 24 to 96 hours. JoshuaZ 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four days seems more than a bit light for the amount of disruption he's caused and the fact he simply shugged off his last block. FeloniousMonk 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the user goes back to the same things after the block we can always immediately respond with another block. However, if someone blocks for a week I'm not going to object. JoshuaZ 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to do this incrementally, then I would propose a couple weeks of a topic ban - tell him to stay away from articles related to evo-creo (and stop trolling user talk pages). Guettarda 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the matter here is exhausting community patience, which isn't something that builds from shorter to longer blocks, is it? There is, of course, a separate issue of his personal attacks and incivility, which probably needs a lot more attention than it has been given. Guettarda 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for one week to start, but if someone wants to block permanently I wouldn't object. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also wouldn't object to an indefblock. My favorite: "no one ever told me not to call him fellatio. i really dont remember that." No? Oh okay, that's better then. —bbatsell ¿? 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a community ban. He seems to be here only to disrupt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Send in the Balrog! Apart from that, I would support a community ban per a large amount of disruption and incivilty. Yuser31415 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I allowed to say he can fuck off yet? No? Kindly fuck off? No? Oh well. I'm off to make a new award, the Banstar, for banning those who are obviously not here to help. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, in this case you're allowed to say that. God knows I've been saying it under my breath a lot lately. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unfortunate that the situation got so out of control that FeloniousMonk set up a whole separate page on Talk:Intelligent design for Raspor's and another editor's various rants and rapid-fire diatribes. I support FM's way of dealing with the situation, which had gotten well beyond reason. That page alone (Talk:Intelligent design/Raspor's and adlac's objections) is already at 137kB of content (a couple kB of which is due to my own attempts at response/explanation/conciliation, along with similar conciliatory attempts by several other users). Raspor has settled down just a bit of late on Talk:Intelligent design, and [s]he's mostly respected the request to post comments on the page that was set up to accommodate the various shotgun-style objections and accusations (though I see he's moved his activities to some other pages in the meantime). I'm in favor of a temporary block, perhaps a week, if only to give it a rest for awhile, take a forced wiki-break, and hopefully have Raspor come back (if [s]he wishes) with more of an orientation towards interactive discussion and contribution rather than just ranting. ... Kenosis 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I now see Jayjig appears to already have blocked Raspor for a week. Seems to me if [s]he's to be allowed to return after whatever the decision is among the admins, it should be with the caveat that a repetition of the pattern will result in a permanent block--just my opinion. ... Kenosis 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this course of action - if this editor returns and makes one more personal attack, I support indef. The "fellatio" remark alone is beyond the pale, and one look at the talk page of his Rfc shows mutiple personal attacks and a total lack of interest in being even remotely civil. His goal seems disruption and trolling, with one or two productive edits buried amongst thousands of counter-productive hostile rants. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick skim of contributions - I've got to wonder why we spent so many manhours on such hopeless cases - editing wikipedia is an entitlement, it's not a right, yet I've seen less handwringing about sending people to prison (mind you that might say more about the UK Justice system..) --Charlesknight 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe that some of the comments in this section are incorrect and/or misleading. I question the claim that "there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate"; it seems that most if not all of the people objecting to him are on one side of the debate (and not his side, of course!). I'm not sure what the claim that "he simply shugged (sic) off his last block" means; he was new, didn't know about the three-reverts rule, but now does and hasn't reoffended on that. And although I agree he has been aggressive and abusive, it was largely in response to others insulting him or being abusive to him. Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 to 3 against, and you're questioning the claim that there was a huge turn out from both sides of the debate? And you're simply mistaken that most of the people objecting to him are not on his side of the topic, off the top of my head AvB and Filll are. Also, by your own reasoning here we should note that you happen to share his view on the topic as well, so I'm not sure where you think that line of argument will get you. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm a Christian and believe that the God of the Bible has created the universe, I'm not an ID proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Or any other type of creationist in the extreme US sense for that matter. I fully accept scientific findings supported by a robust body of evidence, which includes evolution. At any rate, the RfC has been sufficiently advertised so the virtually unanimous agreement with FM's assessment is highly significant. AvB ÷ talk 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that raspor seems to have had so much difficulty in reading and following policy, specifically WP:3RR which he was warned of twice (in the first instance not in the recommended format) and allowed to get to 8 reversions before being blocked, then treated it as an unfair personal attack that he'd not been allowed to argue against. As this comment shows he's still having difficulty in understanding what behaviour is expected of him: you've had some success in discussing some things with him, Philip, and it would be good if you could persuade him that he should fully comply with the rules so that an ending of the block is not immediately followed by a repetition of disruptive behaviour. ... dave souza, talk 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I am in full support of this ban. Based on how he has responded poorly to even the numerous calm and friendly attempts to guide him I suspect he'll be back to his disruptive ways as soon as the ban is lifted. With that in mind I think he has no business editing any ID or ID related articles until he demonstrates an ability to respect other editors, Wiki policies. He could do that by limiting his edits to non-controversial subjects. Mr Christopher 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Raspor's edits to his talk since he's been blocked, I see he's not only continued the personal attacks/name calling, but escalated [12][13] and has made his talk page a locus of disruption drawing responses from a number of editors. Considering that even while in the pokey he's continued the very sort of disruption that landed him there in the first place, misusing the one priveledge he retained while blocked to turn his talk page into a source of friction, I think Raspor is a hopeless case and therefore a permanent block is the only thing that will put an end to the disruption. And sooner rather than later to spare the community any additional time and goodwill being wasted. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another editor is encouraging him to initiate a freep fest (ala Free Republic) as a means of retribution for his "treatment" here [14]. How very odd. Mr Christopher 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just cautioned both against that at Raspor's talk page. Amazingly bad advice from User:Geo.plrd. FeloniousMonk 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time Geo. has given improper advice - [15]. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advice is even more worrying given the fact that Geo.plrd is active in advocacy, making him an important source of advice for confused or misconstrued editors. --HassourZain 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about that as well. If there's any oversight going on at WP:AMA, this certainly the sort of behavior they need to be looking into. It should be brought up there I suppose. FeloniousMonk 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uggggh. I spent far too much time reading up on this case. I've given Raspor a final warning about disruption, and after one more infraction I'll protect the page until the block expires. There's not much point to a block if the person continues the very behavior he or she was blocked for in the first place. -- Merope 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the records on Raspor's talk page the observer may note that I've done my best to try to get him to understand the purpose of Wikipedia fruitlessly. I cannot help but think that either he simply cannot understand it or refuses to bother with it, and as I said some time earlier, it's like trying to bail water from a boat using a dixie cup. If I weren't so incorrigibly hardheaded, I think I would have given up trying to help him a while ago. --HassourZain 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HassourZain, you have demonstrated an amazing patience with raspor and your good faith efforts to be helpful have been noted by me. Mr Christopher 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HassourZain's efforts are 1st class through and through. It's people like him that make up for the shenanigans of the others and keeps contributing here worthwhile. FeloniousMonk 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. :) --HassourZain 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks too for your admirable and patient words. One problem that came up earlyish was that when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it. The WP:TROLL article definition is dependant on motive, which of course is impossible to judge, and so is useless for defining behaviour which is what's important. The WP:DE article focusses on article edits rather than talk page disruption. Should these guidelines be changed or clarified? .. dave souza, talk 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...when I requested raspor to stop trolling, he took this as a personal attack and repeatedly complained about it." That's typical 'victim bully' behavior. Dean Dad, in writing about The College Administrator's Survival Guide, by C.K. Gunsalus (Harvard U Press, 2006), notes that Gunsalus distinguishes between traditional, assertive bullies, who throw their weight around with bluster and force, and 'victim bullies,' who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over others. He goes on to write "that unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully’s first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of administerial nerve. I've had some experience with these, and I can say without reservation that they are, by far, my least favorite editors to wrangle. It's not just that they're unpleasant and batshit crazy; they're self-righteously unpleasant and batshit crazy. They're implausibly persistent. Gunsalus makes the correct point that the key to defeating victim bullies is the classic administrative pincer movement of process-and-time. Easier said than done, but still right." FeloniousMonk 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, FM. On his talk page Raspor coninues to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia editing policies as well as being unfamiliar with intelligent design in general (as evidenced here). This is something he has shown since day one. I suspect he has either not yet studied any of our policies or has decided they are of no use to him. This makes working with him impossible. If he'd spend some time actually learning our policies his disruptions would go down by 99% or so. With this is mind, what happens after his block is lifted? I mean from an administrative standpoint, I pretty much know what to expect from him but I'm curious if/when he starts acting out again, will a new Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report need to be submitted or will we utilize this existing one? And will there be an administrator assigned to monitor his behaviour? Mr Christopher 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, judging by his comments on his talk page [[16] my attempt to answer his question(s) seems to have sent him into a mental tail-spin. He seems to be looking for the word "theory" now in every article and inisting we change the other articles to read like the ID one. How can we work with such a person when he begins posting on the article talk page again and not just on his own personal talk page? Mr Christopher 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the "what next" question - it all depends on how Raspor acts after the block runs out. If he decides to act within accepted norms, then he will probably be given a second chance. If he continues to act as he has been, then I'm sure someone will re-block him. Guettarda 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit only spot checking his contribs, but this seems like a case where someone, a subject expert, feels his areas of expertise are being poorly represented by the articles and subject novices who are "equal" with him in the WP system. The user is thus getting frustrated and some apparent mob rule against him by other editors is been making matters worse. CyberAnth 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who's who in your analogy. However, raspor has shown no expertise, rather an uncanny ability to play on people's desire to explain things, then pick on points with a remarkable resemblance to standard creationist arguments and interpret or ignore the answers to emerge triumphantly having proved his point. He did it with Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence, and even confined to his user page, here he goes again. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the original post more clear. CyberAnth 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through Talk:Evolution of cetaceans#Again overstatement of evidence to the end of the talk page, you'll see that raspor keeps any expertise well concealed. .. dave souza, talk 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth, sorry, I may be dense because I am still not following you. Who is the subject expert you mentioned and what subject is their expertise? Thanks. Mr Christopher 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the link you gave and the link he gave therein referencing his talk page on the matter, the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID (or whatever naming variants it goes by). He seems to feel his expertise area is being very poorly represented in articles. He appears to have gotten very frustrated and, from it, done some communication games; but I think this is more a reaction to what really does appear to me as some "mob rule" against him and his views. Keep in mind that my analysis here is coming from someone who is looking in from the outside. You might want to give him an olive branch and really listen to his concerns and see how they can be incorporated into the article some more. In short, appease him by addressing his concerns some more. No one will get their fill plate. That means everyone. CyberAnth 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I am perplexed as I have been studying intelligent design for several years now, I routinely read both sides of the debate even today. I have also read a tremendous amout of posts and responses from raspor since he stumbled upon the intelligent design article and I have yet to read a single item written by him that suggests he has even a conversational understanding of intelligent design. and certainly not a subject expert on intelligent design. But based on what you have expressed I am obviously overlooking very important information and evidence that should be weighed in this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. Would you mind helping out by showing a few diffs/examples where raspor has demonstrated a subject expertise in intelligent design? Thank will help me and I think others here quite a bit. Thanks again. <insert> also, some examples where he simply came accross as "obviously knowledgable" would help too. Mr Christopher 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> Intriguing. I appreciate that CyberAnth has only been able to spot check raspor's contributions before commenting, and the sympathy is entirely understandable. However the impression that raspor was immediately set upon by a mob is not supported by looking at his start on the ID article. His first contribution there on 22 December was unfortunate, as he deleted the previous post and was reverted.[17] [18] with the comment (please do not remove or edit others' posts), then he did the same again on the talk page[19] and on the page of the editor who'd reverted the first comment.[20] This could of course be a newbie's error, but oddly enough it's a mistake raspor did not make almost a month earlier when first editing a talk page.[21] Anyway, that mistake was sorted out and discussion resumed at Permission. If you read down you'll find editors responding to raspor's opinions by asking him to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for his assertions. He did not do the latter, despite having learnt the hard way about the need to cite sources on his first article by the 28th of November.[22] His responses lack such niceties of politeness, and introduce allegations of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations. If that's being set upon by a mob, it was a remarkably polite and patient mob. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth: you said the user obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID. Really? I have not seen any evidence that Raspor knows much about ID at all. On the contrary, s/he seems to be sadly unaware of much of the issues surrounding ID. In fact, Raspor recently said that s/he was starting to read the Wedge document, which is one of the fundamental documents related to ID. While Raspor is very aggressive in his/her assertions, s/he has not displayed much knowledge of either ID or science. Guettarda 16:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth is mistaken, Raspor is hardly a subject matter expert. As seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor he is regarded as not knowledgable on the topic of ID by every credible long time contributor to that article. The fact is the greatest cause of Raspor's problems here, other than his refusal to comprehend and follow our policies, is his incomplete knowledge of the subject matter. He is apparently either aware of only one side's opinion, or he is intentionally promoting only that side's view, neither of which makes for good editing. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided an evidenced summary that suggests raspor is as wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter as he is of fundamental Wiki editing policies here that I think is worth considering. Mr Christopher 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspor's understanding of the subject matter has been made irrelevant by his attitude and actions. Throw him out. But let him return when he is ready to abide by Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:AGF. AvB ÷ talk 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspor's agenda

Raspor's edit here makes it crystal clear that his agenda in editing Wikipedia is not to help preserve NPOV when editing the Intelligent Design article, but to show the embittered and hateful atheists that intelligent design simply is. I issued a warning that characterizing the other side of the debate as atheists (and bitter ones at that) violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and possibly even WP:NPA. I have zero experience with RFCs, but if someone wants to tell me where to put this diff (or to copy it over for me), he or she is free to do so. -- Merope 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's already clearly demonstrated that he's more interested in causing disruption than contributing in good faith, as this comment indicates: [23] His 1 week block for disruption ends tomorrow, and since he's exhausted the community's patience by continuing the disruption while blocked, by all indications his wish may be granted. FeloniousMonk 01:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC

Looking at more recent edits[24] [25], raspor appears to be an outraged victim of what s/he perceives as unfair treatment. While his or her behaviour continues to match the description in Edit warring, I've not seen any evidence that this is deliberate trolling. However this all shows that raspor has to be treated very correctly. Further disruption on various talk pages is likely unless raspor has learnt to keep to the purpose of talk pages and to stop aggressively demanding answers to apparently off-topic questions. .. dave souza, talk 09:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His block expired today. Will he get an official notice to that affect so that he knows? The other day he had asked how much longer it was going to be so I am assuming he does not know. I think an admin or other neutral party should inform him. Mr Christopher 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspor's block is over and he's back at it

One day since his block expired and he's again out of his tree disrupting Talk:Intelligent design with off-topic incoherent rants and trolling his user talk page. Not to mention uploading unlicensed images which he's put to good use flouting WP:POINT on his talk page. Minimizing his disruption is taking up way too time and effort of at least four contributors with far better things to do, like write an encyclopedia. He's long past having exhausted the community's patience. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the above articles for deletion (regarding a deceased rapper and his unreleased album, they seem likely hoaxes or at best wholly unverifiable). Jeezy123 is the originator and principal editor of both. Soon after the AfD was posted, this user blanked the AfD page and removed the AfD notice from Young Argo, while apparent single-purpose account Theresa12 did the same for Thug Invasion. I hope an admnistrator will consider appropriate notices for these editors and that eyes will be kept on the AfD (which, given the time lost when it was unavailable, I moved from January 13 to January 14).

Please note the following edits by User:Justas Jonas:

• Predominantly edits one article: [26]
• Labels welcoming messages on their user-talk page as clutter, spam and unnecessary material: [27] & [28].
• Makes unfounded personal attacks against another user [29] and criticizes other user's edits with an air of superiority. Please see various edit summaries at [30] and Talk:Martin Luther.
• May post under an IP address to emphasize User:Justas Jonas' point: [31].
• Resembles a previously banned user, per another editor of Talk:Martin Luther: [32].
• One recent edit war is over the size of and content of the article's opening image infobox. Please see [33].
• Claims that another user's edits cause formatting and/or layout problems, when no-one else experiences such problems. Please see [34] again.
• Appears to ignore input and request for correspondence from much more senior editors. Please see [35] and [36].

I'm sincerely looking forward to hearing options on how this can be resolved. Most if not all other editors of the article are working together to gain FA status for this article. If I am indeed the only one in error here, or if you have some constructive feedback for me, please kindly advise. Keesiewonder 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Keesiewonder's analysis of the situation. This new user account is acting disruptively, and is obviously not a new user account. I agree with this new user that the article requires across-the-board condensation, and also that in the past things have gotten talked to death. However, simply coming in and slashing and burning is not the answer. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another user to add to the set: [37].

So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:

• Special:Contributions/Justas Jonas
  
• Special:Contributions/75.37.215.34
  
• Special:Contributions/Johann Friedrich
  
• Special:Contributions/Ptmccain
  

I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a couple more: Special:Contributions/24.107.121.195 ; Special:Contributions/Bailan Keesiewonder 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser anybody? Circeus 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a checkuser request --Keesiewonder 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser outcome is declined with the statement "Unfortunately, we don't have records for Ptmccain, so there is no way to check if this is him." Can someone explain to me how this is possible, if 1) WP intended to indefinitely ban a user, and if 2)subsequent usernames were determined to be sockpuppets of Ptmccain? Thanks for your insight ... Keesiewonder 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled to see this comment [38]] by JFBurton (talk · contribs). Read the previous part of the talk page to put it in context, this user appears to have a history of personal attacks, but this particular case is totally insensitive. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a thicker skin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irgala (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see WP:PAIN. --InShaneee 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem: that page is inactive. Oh, and look at this. --Majorly 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This process has been discontinued. ??? --Larry laptop 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That happened quietly (though I don't entirely disagree that it was mostly abandoned). --InShaneee 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was anything but quiet. I kept noticing it no matter how much I tried to avoid it hehe. As for the attack, it is a bit uncivil, but hardly a Callous personal attack. I suggest you give the user a civility warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean another warning. Check his block log. --Majorly 16:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I went through the users contribs and found many cases of incivility, I also scanned his userpage history and found the user was fully warned, but simply removed the warnings. I have blocked JFBurton for 4 days. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Its about time you had a weekend off, its all you ever seem to be doing(going on wikipedia)." This is an appalling, callous, personal attack? And people here are taking this seriously? OK, it's painful because of its English, but really... it's not even particularly uncivil. I've had such comments on my Talk page many times, but I've never gone blubbing to Mummy over them. This is exactly why WP:PAIN was killed off — hypersensitive complaints that were too often just a way of edit-warriors trying to get their own way by the back door.

I've just gone through the latest page of his contributions; I found one clear case of incivility, and one of brusqueness in the face of page-blanking vandalism. Could you post here the diffs of all the offences that warrant a four-day block? I'm inclined to lift the block as unwarranted, both in principle and in its extent. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are posted on his talk page(The most recent example only minutes ago[39] since this thread was created), just a few recent examples I am sure I could have found more. This user has also been warned and blocked for personal attacks before, but simply removed the warnings. I was tempted to double the previous block to make it two weeks, but I felt 4 days would give a greater chance of the user being productive in the future. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the dreadful personal attack that you think supports a four-day (or even two-week) block:

"Ok Then, but that comment was mearly an attempt to improve mine and FisherQueen's relationship. Its not my fault if I feel she spends a little bit TOO much time on here. Maybe she has some sort off addiction, thats OK. Perhaps she should go and see a couciller or something, you may need it in this sad time of your life. JFBurton 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Now, it's more genuinely uncivil than the one that started off this thread, but it's hardly severe. The othjer diffs

Could other editors offer their opinions on this? It seems to me that the block is dubious in itself, but its length isn't justified by any stretch of the imagination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Mel Etitis. Asterion^talk 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each action on it's own may not justify a block, but those examples are all from the last couple days. This user has made no indication that he is willing to follow our civility policy as is evidenced by his removed warnings and previous blocks. The fact that the most recent incivility was moments after being asked to be more civil was the clincher. 4 days does not seem like a long time for a fourth civility block, this user already received a week long block for the same thing in December. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too attached to this decision of mine, and will respect consensus. I just ask that any admin that unblocks this user watches him. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they had all been made within five minutes they're just not uncivil enough even to warrant more than a very mild "be a bit more polite". I'll lift the block then, and happily watch him to make sure that he doesn't make an idiot of me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your of the opinion that it does not matter how much a person is uncivil as long as the aren't too uncivil at any one point(correct me if I am misinterpreting)? I tend the think that quantity bares some relevance. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any of the comments counts as genuine incivility (well, maybe one was slightly uncivil, and another was too brusque, but was a reaction to page-blanking). One hundred uncivil comments doesn't add up to incivility, though, no. Nor do one hundred slightly impatient comments, or even one hundred snappy but not really uncivil comments. At least some (at least most, in fact) of the diffs should be cases of clear and genuine incivility. they're not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a little context... the reason the comments he made are rather incivil is that they follow immediately upon my note on my talk page that I was taking a little time to grieve over my grandfather's death. The reason that I was particularly troubled by the comment is that they follow a history of sniping against me, including [40], [41], [42], and [43] (when I was not the person who deleted the 'administrator' tag from his userpage). [44] is the first time I met him and the only time that I actually did anything to a page he was working on, when during randompage patrol I reverted an inappropriate edit he made.

I am not asking on my own behalf to have him blocked, but offering context to what made his most recent edits so unpleasant- not that I am oversensitive but that he took advantage of my grief for my grandfather's death to take the most recent in a series of unpleasant comments to or about me.

I have simply asked him to stop posting on my talk page (unless it's needed for encyclopedia-creating purposes) and not to edit my userpage. And that's really all I want from him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a 4-day block, although that is no longer in effect. The diffs FisherQueen put forth make it obvious that he is incivil and an attacker. I would support a longer duration block and a possible ban if he continues this behavior. If he stops, I will let bygones be bygones as long as FisherQueen is okay with that. Cbrown1023 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm okay with that- I don't think I have ever asked for him to be blocked, although he has several times been blocked for attacks against me. If he is actually willing to stop, that's all I want from him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried repeatedly to post a reply here, but keep getting blocked by the spam filter. I've left messages at Buton's Talk page, FisherQueen's Talk page, and WP:AN. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this user twice in the past, for the diffs shown by FisherQueen. My primary concern is his targeting of FisherQueen. While the comment was certainly callous and insensitive, we do not block people for lack of manners. However, we do block people for continuing to harrass and stalk users, which is what I feel this was. I will continue keeping an eye on this user. -- Merope 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. A textbook case of how a series of incivil comments that directed to another user in a different context might not be concerning, but here certainly count as disruption. Perhaps this indicates a less legalistic way forward after the PAIN deletion. That is, to take much more into account the reaction and desires of the user who is the target of the incivil comments. If they are iron-skinned veterans who are willing to brush it off, then no disruption has occurred, so no need for admin action.

But the flipside is that users who are affected by incivil comments that perhaps for most people are not that severe, should also have the right to claim that such comments are disrupting their ability to edit the encyclopedia, and should be protected. - Merzbow 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 4 day block was overkill, but now that JFBurton is aware he should refrain from stirring the pot, and just leave FisherQueen alone, any further snarky comments should be met with zero tolerance. Proto::► 11:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the block to 48 hours. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referred here to report information re: the pie vandal, so I assume this is what I'm supposed to do. Basically, a user is editing primarily music-related articles and vandalising them, usually using the edit summary "pie." His edits typically involve inserting the name Michael Alfred Montalbano, or some variant, into the text. These three IPs have been used for this purpose in the article Torn (Ednaswap song) and have also edited other articles in a similar manner: 172.144.143.60 (talk · contribs), 207.69.139.12 (talk · contribs), and 207.69.137.36 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure exactly what's to be done about it, if anything. Thank you for considering this information. - GassyGuy 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that pie has now struck again as 207.69.139.6 (talk · contribs). I'm guessing this is a range of IPs accessible by some dialup network or another? GassyGuy 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another strike now by 207.69.137.23 (talk · contribs). What is this range of IPs? GassyGuy 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a somewhat rocky history on Wikipedia recently.

After repeated warnings for incivility and a block last month for WP:POINT and personal attacks, I've blocked Light current for 24 hours for recurring recent incivility. (He has taken to calling a couple of editors he disagrees with 'Hippo' and 'schizoid', he's also taken to calling Chairboy 'chairy' after he gave Light current a warning.)

Because I have been involved in the imbroglio at the Ref Desk over appropriate standards for behaviour there, I may be in a position where there is a perceived conflict of interest. I therefore ask for independent review of this block.

Before this comes up in another post, I've also issued several warnings to Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated incivility. I'm getting rather tired of parties to the Ref Desk dispute engaging in petty behaviour instead of polite discussion, and I will continue to issue blocks as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just following form here: Any particular thing he was been blocked for following the warning? Being marginally famaliar with this user's contributions, I have no doubt there are plenty to choose from, I simply mean was it an accumlation of small insults or was there a "clencher." - brenneman 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The insults originally appeared on a number of other pages; the talk page warnings (er, the most recent ones) as well as Light current's response are in his talk page's history here: [45]. Note that his response to the warnings was to repeat the insults and namecalling.

He's since removed the note I placed explaining the block from his talk page, and he's been working his way through his talk page removing the names. (He's also added a big, bold 'I CAN ONLY REPLY ON THIS PAGE AS I HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY BLOCKED BY TEN OF ALL TRADES FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON' message to his talk page header.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When he says "Hippo," I think it's just his, er, affectionate name for Hipocrite. I don't think he's calling anyone a hippopotamus. Same thing with "Chairy" for Chairboy. Annoying, but not a personal attack. (To clarify, I might be annoyed if someone called me Picaroony, but I wouldn't consider it a personal attack.) However, I have to agree, saying things like this are blatant personal attacks. Picaroon 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Following a quick review of his last couple hours of editing, I endorse the block. Bucketsofg 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As Picaroony says, the shortening of names is probably not deliberately offensive, but if the users in question have indicated that they do not like these shortended appelations, then continuing to use them is rude. Accusing Fridayy of being schizophrenic is enough to push Lighty into needing a block to calm down and prevent any further incivility. Proto::► 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the block (other than perhaps surprise) since it was me he was called "schizophrenic". But, I continue to be concerned about erratic behavior from this editor. This is far from the first time we've seen him push the limits of tolerable behavior and then say he doesn't understand why he was blocked. If he wasn't doing useful article work, the answer would be obvious. Maybe he needs mentoring? Friday (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I do wonder how he pronounces "TOAT". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • He says to rhyme with "boat", and I say "toe-att". (Also, he says "toMAHtoe" and I say "toMAYtoe", but let's call THAT whole thing off!) Here's my reasoning. Clearly he was not referring to Ten Of All Trades, whom he calls "Ten". (I presume this is a Borg designation, like "Seven of Nine", rather than a step down from being a "Jack of All Trades".) Then, by analogy with "FOAF" ("Friend Of A Friend", "foe-aff", the ubiquitous source of urban legends), "TOAT" must mean "Trend Of A Trend", "toe-att", and he is discussing statistical derivatives, like the beginning of an upswing in the financial markets. Quite technical, and confusing to the uninitiated, but it shouldn't distress the lay readers, who can simply skip over that part. HTH. -- Ben 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people are being seriously overly sensitive here. I don't try to get people blocked for calling me "Rat", for example. StuRat 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Has this block been extended ? If so, why ? StuRat 06:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him again, and explained why on his talk page. The block was reviewed and upheld by Guinnog, who explained his rationale also. I'm not seeing at all that blocks are helping tho- so if anyone has a better idea on what to do, go for it. Friday (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I endorsed the block just after having a (very minor) interaction with him over his deletion of a picture from an article, it may be that further input from an utterly uninvolved admin would be beneficial. The latest focus of his ire seems to be that he feels justified in ridiculing anyone with a lower edit count than he has got. I agree with Friday's point above that these blocks (while I still agree with them) do not seem to be having the right effect. I won't be in the least offended if anyone finds a better way to make this editor a more productive and collegial one. --Guinnog 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned by Test4 (see User talk:VinceB/Blabla1) and several times blocked. He has now changed a citation from an academic journal (replacing "nationalist" by a weaker description, not mentioned in the cited article).[46] This kind of vandalism is especially threatening to WP:CITE. User:Wknight94 suggested I post it here. Tankred 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets means, that I was not logged in (aka IP). Not fake users. You were warned several times also to WP:CIV, wich you usually simply deleted. It should be checked too, since it is a vandalism, and pa, and/or disruptive editing. Not to mention that you failed on Cite in Fidesz article, wich I always take care of, so yr second sentence is a LOL. I didn't knew, it is vandalism, but I'll report them from now on as vandalism. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if such comments in user pages are acceptable [47] particularly the claim that calling somebody a Hindu is an accusation (a view commonly held by Islamic Fundamentalists in South Asia). Had he said "I am offended if somebody calls me a Hindu" that would be different, but the term "accuse" is inherently offensive to Hindus.I'm sure that if similar statements were made against any other religion then the user would be immediately censured.

As background, User:Szhaider was blocked for a week for being tendentious, disruptive in India-Pakistan articles, making personal attacks and ethnic slurs against User:Rama's Arrow[48] for which he got his talk page protected (see previous diff) and is involved in a dispute concerning meatpuppetry with a group of users who stand accused of tag-team edit-warring with Pakistani nationalist/Islamic Fundamentalist biases[49]Rumpelstiltskin223 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't look at all acceptable to me. The "Countries that I consider threats to World Peace and Humanity" probably isn't great either, but it isn't nearly as offensive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as troubling as that his first edits after a week-long block for incivility and edit warring are incivility, is the fact that many of his other edits are edit warring again, as well. I've reblocked him for two weeks this time. Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's on his third {{unblock}} now, claiming the existence of some secret lobby and claiming ignorance of the offensive nature of the statement on his userpage. Anyone? Usertalk protection? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just get it over with and ban him? From his now conspiratorial rhetoric, it seems like he has absolutely no intention on benefiting Wikipedia. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, indef block him? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that's getting to sound quite reasonable. Is there any good reason not to do it at this point, or at least issue some sort of heavy block? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind anyone overturning my block for an extension. Dmcdevit·t 07:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are all jumping the gun a bit. First of all, as someone who seems to have appeared in examples of user Szhaider's personal attacks, I think this whole issue is being overblown. I didn't view those examples as personal attacks on me. My sense is that user Rumpelstiltskin223, who posted the first message above, and the admin, Rama's Arrow, who earlier banned Szhaider for a week, might have the letter of the law on their side, but are straining the spirit of the law. Here are bureaucrat Nichalp and admin Saravask's responses to the first week-long block of users Szhaider, Nadirali, and Unre4L. Please also see admin Dbachmann's responses here.

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dmcdevit's additional block -- Samir धर्म 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To mix anti-Hindu remarks with a beg to unblock is akin to shooting yourself in the foot while you are bleeding profusely. While the other side is not faultless, it does not entitle Szhaider to conduct retributive actions. The idea of indef-blocking him will not be conducted (at least by me) without strong community consensus, and no consensus has emerged of yet. So no worries about the non-impending ban, but Szhaider has to change his attitude, by blocks if necessary. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Szhaider may have reacted emotionally because he felt cornered and helpless. I will give you some evidence below. Admin Rama's Arrow has been involved in edit-warring himself with Szhaider on the Muhammad Iqbal page. In this, Rumpelstiltskin223 and Bakasuprman have joined Rama's Arrow on what certainly appears to be a tag-team effort. See history from Jan 4, 2007 onwards. Let me give you a little background. Iqbal was a famous poet of British India who died in 1930 before British India was divided into the independent nations of India and Pakistan. However, it was he who first proposed the idea of a nation for the Muslims of the subcontinent (which later became "Pakistan"); consequently, he a big national hero in Pakistan, as well as their national poet; not to mention that Iqbal alway lived in the part of British India that is now Pakistan. Rama's Arrow and Co. were fighting with Szhaider over how to "label" Iqbal in the first sentence, with the former group wanting to call him an "Indian Muslim poet" (where Indian is a disambiguation page whose first link is Republic of India, a country that Iqbal most certainly didn't belong to) and Szhaider wanting to call him a "Muslim poet of the Indian subcontinent" (where the subcontinent includes both India and Pakistan, i.e. the lands of British India). From my perspective (as a neutral observer as well as someone who has co-written the current lead for the Republic of India page), Szhaider's characterization is more accurate. Please now look at Szhaider's [edit1], followed by Rama's Arrow's reversal with edit summary "rvv POV". Whatever Szhaider is doing, it is not vandalism (and hardly POV). That Rama's Arrow is aware that he is edit-warring is clear from his characterizing his "rv" as "fx link" here to avoid a potential 3RR violation. Admittedly Szhaider is less savvy about using "NPOV" sounding language, but he is no more a vandal than the "tag team" is.

I feel that Rama's Arrow has violated his administrator's privilege by issuing a 1-week ban of an editor he himself was edit-warring with, especially in a situation where, to a neutral party like me, it is not at all clear (at least on the Muhammad Iqbal page) which party was more at fault.

Szhaider should be given a warning, but he should be unblocked after 24 hours. Alternately both Rama's Arrow and Rumpelstiltskin223 should be blocked for a week. I have myself battled Szhaider on various pages, but I think he is getting a raw deal and, concurrently, Rama's Arrow and Rumpelstiltskin223 are getting away scot-free. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's arrow blocked for a solid administrative action? Ludicrous -- Samir धर्म 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been adequately warned by many editors. I know that the Indian-Pakistani conflicts on Wikipedia are often tense, but it is not a "get-out-of-jail-free" ticket. Nothing justifies his behavior. And considering that he had been blocked once before, I'm sure he knows that his current behavior is not appreciated by the community as a whole. I don't condone the incivility others may have perpetrated at Szhaider, but there is a point where you just have to cool down, take a break, grow a thicker skin, swallow your anger, and go edit somewhere else. I'm already willing to drop the indef-block suggestion if he would only change his behavior. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama's Arrow has now increased the block to 3-weeks (for Szhaider's trying to edit from an IP address). Even though Szhaider is at fault, I don't think this rapid escalation of punishment is going to help, especially by an admin who should have recused himself from such action. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at what that IP is doing, too: warring to reinsert the inflammatory comments that led to the block. I'm sure you'll find almost any admin weighing in here, including me, will vouch for an extension. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending Szhaider (or his IP mischief), but I still think the punishment will be more effective if it is served in controlled doses, rather than in this summarily snowballing fashion. As for your example of Szhaider's incivility after he came out of his week-long block, which was an exchange with me here, it's funny, but I didn't think he was particularly uncivil! It was a vigorous exchange to be sure, but I didn't lose any sleep over it. The issue was resolved satisfactorily on the Taxila talk page. I am just very uncomfortable that an Indian admin, Rama's Arrow, (without posting a notice here), has blocked 3 Pakistani users for edit-warring and incivility, when he himself has been stoking the flames of the fire (at least on the Iqbal page). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Clearly, Szhaider had previously broached this issue with Rama's Arrow and Bakasuprman had even advised Rama's Arrow to "outsource the block" to another admin. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like User:Szhaider’s so called “secret lobby” isn’t so secret anymore where a group of editors openly discuss past and present strategies. And sysops are busy policing rather than administrating.--IsleScape^Talk 12:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting article I'd like you to read. I see no problem with the block. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nearly Headless Nick, The article on Rules lawyer that you find "interesting," who would you like to read it and why? Please explain clearly what that has to do with the subject at hand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few things that need to be sorted out. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to butt in (out of time order), but it makes sense to reply here. I don't know why Nearly Headless Nick is being so coy. I left a message at the IP address from which Szhaider had illegally logged in warning him to not edit as an IP or under another name because it would only extend his block. I also told him that he probably has been treated unfairly, and to hold his horses until his block expires and I will help him with examining Rama's Arrow's admin actions here on WP:ANI. What needs to be sorted out? I'm hardly an advocate (secret or otherwise) of what Szhaider has done. It is the punishment that I am questioning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - szhaider had it coming to him as Dmcdevit and physicq attest to. Also fowler, to other viewers it may be interesting how you tried to solicit nadirali (szhaider's buddy) for edit wars you were in [50]. On Iqbal, the article went through the FA process as Iqbal being an Indian poet. Adding nationalistic cruft of him belonging to a nation whose idea never existed at the time is preposterous. Btw, its not only Hindu users that had trouble with him, Anupam (talk · contribs), Kumaranator (talk · contribs) (Christian) and Sukh (talk · contribs) (Sikh) had issues with him as well.Bakaman 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To user Bakaman: I didn't try to "recruit" Nadir Ali, who BTW I have my share of disagreements with, but simply told him to keep an eye on the Indus Valley Civilization page where the version of the lead I had edited (which is also the current version):

had been reverted by some Indian editors to a halting, ungrammatical earlier version:

As it turned out, I didn't have to, since Dbachmann took care of the problem. Later, nadirali replied by saying that it was a sensitive issue, but as a result of my editing the article was at its most neutral. See here for his reply. What does that have to do with what we are discussing here: whether an admin, Rama's Arrow, who had a history of edit-warring with Szhaider, has perhaps over-reacted? And should he have raised the issue here first? Certainly if bureaucrat Nichalp—someone with great experience in India-related matters—felt that the first 1-week block was "a little too harsh and a 48 hour block should have sufficed," and that "Ideally, as a party involved, RA (Rama's Arrow) should have raised the issue on WP:ANI." (see here), we are well within the pale of reason to ask if Rama's Arrow has indeed over-reacted. Clearly, you, Bakasuprman, advised Rama's Arrow:

(Full details:here). So, what is the point of now pointing the finger at me and looking for potential skeletons in my closet? Even if you find some, How will that help? The problem of Rama's Arrow's actions will remain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the following email explaining Szhaider's position (if someone wants to turn this into one of those fancy expanding boxes, go right ahead): -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the welcome thing, I merely place a template on a user's page. Obviously Baloch Victory didn't choose to make pages on Balochistan good and decided to go bother szhaider. BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) welcomed anti-Hindu trolls by the droves, Siddiqui (talk · contribs) solicited meatpuppets, unre4l (talk · contribs) spammed to recruit for a forum. Placing a welcome template on a new user's page is hardly a crime.Bakaman 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very difficult to take what Fowler is saying in good faith. Here we have a clearcut example of inflammatory and incivil statements made by User:Szhaider and his IP's, and Fowler is questioning the wisdom of the block, even going so far as to claim that it is punitive because of disagreements over an article? Szhaider's actions were clearly egregious and everyone contributing to this thread has agreed. I suggest that Fowler give this up, because I sure can't figure out why he's trying to vilify Rama's Arrow for a good administrative action -- Samir धर्म 06:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding Szhaider's first statement in his email directing an accusation at me, I must point the reader to my first post to this topic, where I said:

Notice that I did not say that he was an Islamic Fundamentalist, merely that this is a view commonly held by Islamic Fundamentalists. Commonly is not the same as exclusively so his claim that I was calling him one is baseless, as is his rather hysterical claim that I am somehow "insulting all Muslims of Pakistan" since the word "Pakistan" was not even mentioned in the sentence in question. There are Muslims all over South Asia. Thus, there is no insult here but the one that Szhaider perceives or infers, and his perceptions and inferences are not my problem, or that of all wikipedia people, for that matter. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would only like to reiterate that I have never, ever sought to engage in the kind of behavior Fowler accuses me of doing. It is plainly wrong (and were this not a lucid discussion on ANI, even insulting) to suggest that I was trying to supress Pakistani editors. I had sought forestall such a edit-war from emerging when I started the Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion with user:Spasage and others. I did not recuse from blocking Szhaider as he had violated a combination of policies at once - WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:3RR. I had already expressed a desire to recuse, but when it became obvious that Szhaider was being disruptive over several policies and articles, it was clear to me that a block was necessary. I respect the tradition of recusing, but I can't say I was wrong to block Szhaider in the first place. Rama's arrow (3:16) 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, someone keeps harassing me and changing my user page... and I have to keep changing it back... what can I do? (I'm kinda new to wikipedia, but I've used it before)--TommyOliver 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are removing valid warnings that were placed on your talk page. This isn't agaisnt the rules, but it is usually considered to be bad unless you are archiving. I'd say just let it stay on your talk page and shrug it off. --Wildnox(talk) 06:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will say it wasn't very civil for the continued replacement of the warning either. --Wildnox(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing incivil about it, he's clearly a disruptive force. John Reaves 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a tragic misstep by a newbie, not a calculated insult by a troll. Do read WP:BITE, please. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Physicq2. Those who placed the warnings should read both WP:AGF and WP:BITE, perhaps WP:DISRUPT and WP:HARASS. We don't go around harassing newbies here. Yuser31415 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was told not to delete the warning, and I'll assume WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT are directed toward the offending user. John Reaves 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, WP:HARASS and WP:DISRUPT are directed to both of you. You (and for the matter, he) are not free from fault here. But this is trivial. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if he was told so? There's absolutely nothing wrong with him erasing warnings on his own talk page; there's no policy against it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, and after Wildnox's initial response, I'd really like to make sure there's no room for misunderstanding here. It's the editors who have been edit warring with Tommy Oliver over his page who are "the offending users". It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages, or to force them to archive. (The History is an archive in itself.) Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment. (Not a good idea to assume that suggested reading has to be about your opponent's missteps, much better to actually click on it.) Also a number of threads formerly on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats for doing it, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. Everybody, please do avoid obsessing about what you would like to see on other people's talkpages. Just leave them alone. Do not harass. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All said and done here, this user appears likely to be a sock. His second edit was a well informed WP:AFD comment [51], he knew he could get away with removing warnings, and he knew about this noticeboard. He also exhibits the uncivil mannerisms that indef blocked sockpuppets often show. Just throwing in my two cents: I would file checkuser, but not for fishing, etc. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a week ago, I would be blocking ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) because of the potentially offensive user name. He has chosen to argue rather than to come up with a new name. I have indefinitely blocked him. This block is solely because of the User name, I have not become involved in any of his contentious edits, and don't really care at this point. If he chooses a new name which is not offensive, then he can use that. Our policies are clear in this matter. As Wikipedia:Username says, Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name.. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but 818 is neo-nazi code for "Heil Adolf Hilter" (8=H 1=A 8=H). that in combination with "Aryan"... --Larry laptop 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see from reading the user page there are various cultural issues with the indian use of the name Aryan. However I still think the name needs to be changed because it the conclusion I've just made is a likely one for many western europeans to make. Over the long-term it a name change would provide a lot of hassle and misunderstandings. --Larry laptop 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "provide" "avoid". -- Ben 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. He keeps claiming that his name is Aryan and he lives in the 818 area code, but won't listen when it's explained to him that the two things put together are Nazi-speak. If he removed the 818, it wouldn't be that egregious, if he could explain that his name is Aryan, but the two together can't stand. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was skeptical about this, but sure enough... look here (if you have a strong stomach) [52] Raymond Arritt 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking that name, Zoe. While he might not have chosen that combination out of a neo-nazi agenda, it just made me uncomfortable seeing it here on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a username like ARIAN103 (one, nought/not three) still be permitted, however much it might distress the Trinitarians among us? -- Ben 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the "103" refer to? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it could symbolise the victory of the Arian belief that God has only one (1) nature over (0) the trinitarian view that he has 3 (father, son, holy spirit).--Stephan Schulz 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the word in parentheses hinted, "one nought three" sounds like "one, not three" -- one God (the Father), not three (the Trinity). Arianism was the losing side at the First Council of Nicea (AD 325), and a theological ancestor of today's Unitarianism. I was attempting a riff on the "Aryan"/"Arian" homonymy, two words with different meanings that sound alike. -- Ben 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't bother me (since none of these religious debates mean anything to me), though it is advocating a position, and therefore probably fails the Username criteria. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a matter of heated controversy once -- literally "heated", since later Arians were burned at the stake as heretics -- but why should an expression of the minority view be any more a username violation than an expression of the majority view? E.g. User:Trinitarian (has contribs but no user page), User:Trinitarianism (ditto), User:Trinity3 (ditto), User:Trinitycatholic (ditto), among others. -- Ben 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me that there is a big can of worms being inserted into a can opener here. If (say) the Trinitarians were to object to each name that implied a heretical view, while the heretics en bloc objected to the names suggesting orthodoxy, would all those names have to change? Or would majority rule let all the big groups block all the smaller groups' names? Wikipedia is not censored, but usernames clearly are -- is there a discrepancy here, or has it been explained somewhere I missed? -- Ben 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:Username#Rationale. Our aim is to build a encyclopedia of all human knowledge. Censorship of content is not compatible with this goal. Restricting offensive usernames is, and in many cases is even furthering that goal by keeping off-topic conflict between editors to a minimum. --Stephan Schulz 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the user at hand. Assuming he agrees to change names, what are his options? Would "Aryan [lastname or initial]", possibly with the addition "in LA", be acceptable to everyone? Name not in all-caps, area code removed? Would WP:AGF (or the presumption of innocence) extend that far? Or will there now be suspicion of any username he proposes that still includes "Aryan"? How much wiggle-room will he be allowed? Is this a matter still to be discussed on his talk page, or should this go to an RFC? And will all this be explained to him on his talk page? -- Ben 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. This guy's had his fair share. If he's legitimate, he will not mind choosing a name that has no possible associations with Nazism. Drop it.--Doc^g 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...have you seen this guy's edit history? It's about Hinduism, Sikhism, the Punjab - nothing neo-Nazi or racist. And yes, 818 is the telephone area code of some Los Angeles suburbs that have a large population of Asian immigrants. This does look legit. What's the fellow supposed to do, break the bank for a Malibu bungalow the size of a postage stamp and that coveted 310 prefix? Durova^Charge 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the policy that forces you to embed a phone code into your username. Why not use the post code? Or, given that there are many more inoffensive than offensive names, go for something completely different. User:LA_Indian seems to be free. Or use the first name. Or use the full name - some of us manage fine. --Stephan Schulz 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent debacle on ARYAN818s I hope that the following information I have provided was of use. Previously I have had some problems with this user on the Talk:Dravidian people with his inexcusable behavior and intolerance. My first reaction when he posted such a message stating that "we do not exist" was to be calm and cool. I then diplomatically posted a message in regards to his post ending the message by offering him an "olive branch" and to work together. However, he was non-negotiable and continued with his rowdy intolerant behavior puting our culture down. I have asked for some advice with some other users and they have directed me to this page earlier to post reports on such activity. Also, I have posted some detailed discussions on his page.

If this user does get a different name, the question will be whether he will continue with his abusive, disruptive behavior. The Dravidian people need a lot of editing and work to be done on it, since there are other users on there vandalizing the page making it look like a propganda page. I know that this may sound petty, but it is hard having users like ARYAN818 vandalizing, and disrupting sites we are currently working on like Dravidian people and Tamil people.

It was mentioned that he does not belong to a hate group of a kind. However, Amongst the Indian community are many people of different ethnicities and religious backgrounds. User ARYAN818 has taken the privilage to put our Dravidian culture down and state that we do not exist. Furthermore there are others like him on Wikipedia who are on a "revising campaign" regarding anything that has to do with India, changing the history to suite their own cultural interest. This is very un-Wikipedian.

Wiki Raja 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aryan doesnt understand Dravid=South therefore Dravidian only means South Indian and has no racial connotations.Bakaman 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect in what language does Dravid mean south? If it is in Sanskrit, then south means Daksina not Dravid or Dravidian. The same in Hindi, south means Dahkshina and not Dravid or Dravidian.^[1][2] "Dravidian has a venerable history as a label, and given that in modern times it has been employed in Indian phenomena as diverse as language and temple architecture, literature and systems of land tenure, religion and race (ethnicity)."^[3] Furthermore the term Dravidian connotates to a family of related ethnicities and languages in and outside of India.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Raja (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I forgot to sign my username : ) Wiki Raja 05:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked 201.170.43.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for replacing Sex.com with the following text:

Deleted due a legal action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case number 98-2017 JW') Any additions added will result in a ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT. For verification the case is currently before the Honorable James Ware, United States District Court Judge. Telephone number to his clerk is: <snipped>. A court subpoena has been issued for a current list of anyone who has added information here in violation of the court orders.

It's a legal threat, with page blanking. Still, it seems sort of serious (hence why I'm posting it here). He posted on User talk:AzaToth with the following message: Regarding sex.com the following message has been approved by the United States District Court. If you have questions, call the court. Any further attempt to change the web page will result in an order to show cause re: contempt.

What do you think guys? Legitimate legal concern or ridiculous prank? alphachimp 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prank - unless they plan to stop newspapers talking about the site. --Larry laptop 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a court really decided that, you'd think, if it's a legit court, they would call Jimbo's office. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they probably would not use an IP registered in Mexico. (N Californa court, not S). Prodego ^talk 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) Precisely. Some court staff could be naive...hence the concern. Coincidentally, I sincerely doubt that any US Court would be editing from Mexico City :). alphachimp 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has indeed been extensive litigation over the sex.com domain name before Judge Ware, as is discussed in the sex.com article itself. However, the claim that the court would enter an order barring any information being posted to an independent website is frivolous, and the claim that it would be contempt of court for a non-party to the proceeding to violate an order as to which it lacked notice and an opportunity to heard is inconsistent with governing precedent. To me, it looks like the goal of the poster may have been to harass the Court with a deluge of phone calls to the number provided, and I suggest that the edit be deleted. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses. I'm not as sure about deleting the revisions (are clerk #s typically private?). I'd think they'd show up in court documents. alphachimp 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That phone number is the main number for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. It's not a private number, but I'm sure the court staff have better things to do than answer random questions about whether users can post to the Wikipedia article on sex.com or not. I suppose deleting the edit isn't that big a deal if it's it's just a one-off. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the revisions. No point in allowing anyone to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for harassment. alphachimp 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick peek at the current calendar for Judge James Ware of the USDCNDC. There is no case "98-2017 JW" listed on it. Note that (a) that is not a complete case number (compare it with the real case number for Kremen v. Cohen and the ones on the calendar), and (b) the "98" indicates that it would be a case from 1998. The telephone numbers for Judge Ware's docket clerks (civil and criminal) are published on the court's own web site, by the way. But they certainly don't belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Ware is responsible for a case concerning ownership of the sex.com domain name, as is revealed by a quick Google search. The case number given is wrong and relates to a completely unrelated case. I don't think there's a need for any further action on this unless the purported "notice" is repeated. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A real law firm will send a registered letter, not make a posting on a wiki. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to assume that any real court-order would be enacted by WP:OFFICE and not some anon editor. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be safe, call His Honor's docket clerk. Geo. 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He received a final warning from Diez2 earlier today, and I just reverted some more of his vandalism. As you can see from his contributions page, it looks like he's done a lot of vandalism over the last two days. Mithras6 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a 31 hour block. This guy wasn't trying to improve the encyclopedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this whole idea of issuing warnings for the removal of warnings is just crap. We've got a dynamic IP here, and quite possibly someone getting caught by someone else's block. The guy doesn't need his own legitimate complaints deleted from his talk page to be replaced with an officious template-turd about not removing warnings. Why does that template even exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a good question. The chief function of the template seems to be to deceive the inexperienced into thinking that removing warnings is a wikicrime, and to go harass users based on that false belief. GTBacchus, how about you put it up for deletion? I'd do it, if I didn't suffer from deletophobia, or fear of deletion procedures. Bishonen | talk 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe I will, but not tonight. It's half-past closing time where I am, and I only do XfD before midnight. O_o -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it used to be considered that material in general shouldn't be removed from user talk pages (apart from archiving), as it showed user conduct, and in particular warnings should definitely not be deleted. Then it was pointed out that some admins regularly deleted material, and the approach started changing, but don't think it's a good thing. If warnings are removed, then it's necessary to search through the history, which seems a needless task. They should be left displayed so anyone can make an assessment of conduct (including of course any response by the user regarding a warning). Tyrenius 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having to look at the contribution history is such a burden. If I see someone vandalizing, I'd better look at their history, to see if there are other pages they've been hitting. It's generally apparent at a glance whether they've been fiddling with their own talk page, and it takes at most a handful of clicks to confirm it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this so many times in so many venues it's insane. If you have to rely on the current text of a "vandal"'s talk page to document their previous actions, you're not exercising due dilligence. A much better solution, repeatedly proposed but never acted on as far as I can tell, was to make standard edit summaries for warnings, which would then be inviolate in the talk page history. We deleted {{wr}} and its kin eventually, and I'd support doing so again with this one. Not sure if {{Warnrm}} is even being used, looks like a fork from the August TFD. -- nae'blis 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I could figure out which template was used here, I'd nominate it for deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Dontremovewarn}}. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Correction: It's a pilotguy special -> Image:Stop-hand-caution.png Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of things that used to be: It used to be that we had a principle of forgiving and forgetting. (In fact, we still have. See Wikipedia:Etiquette.) Requiring that people sport scarlet letters, and chastising them when they take them off, is a gross violation of that principle. It seems that editors are forgetting that the warning templates are actually messages, not badges. Uncle G 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who appears to be editing from a strongly nationalist German viewpoint, and has edited tendentiously in the past, most notably on bios of German sportspeople, most notably Michael Schumacher. A look at the block log shows that he has five 3RR violations, four directly on Michael Schumacher and another on 2006 Formula One season, in all cases repeatedly removing negative information about Schumacher's driving tactics. In the October 30 set of reverts, he actually reverts 9 times [53], repeatedly claiming endless reverts as vandalism. He also has a history of being repeatedly rude and incivil (blocked twice), calling editors and edits with different viewpoints as vandals. Editors identified by Ernham as vandals include Mark83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with additional evidence and examples appearing in more detail at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham and User_talk:Ernham). Whilst under block, he was also further blocked for threatening to inciting legal action, claiming that he would report Wikipedia to Schumacher's management. He has also gone round and round at Steffi Graf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), again pushing a strongly pro-German POV. Other disturbing examples include an edit to Miroslav Klose and another to Lukas Podolski, the two strikers in the German national football team, who happen to have Polish heritage, where Ernham deletes info of their Polish bloodline and also blanking a section in David Hilbert, about his university's mathematics faculty being decimated by the Nazi expulsion of Jewish faculty. Ernham also seems to have caused a stir with his participation to various articles about racial groups and IQ, but perhaps others could make a more informed comment about this. At the moment, I feel Ernham should at least be banned from editing Formula One articles, if he has not already totally exhausted community patience. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the diff for that legal threat you say he made? Durova^Charge 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here [54]. Konstable gave him an extra three days last time. There was a previous discussion on ANI about him as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's uncivil schadenfreude, but he doesn't actually threaten to do anything more than gloat. I thought there might be a slam dunk for indef blocking and that isn't it. Durova^Charge 05:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking a little more, the guy got blocked for a week eight hours after the RFC opened. Give him a fair chance to defend himself. Sometimes people do change under community pressure. I'd say come back if he throws away that chance. Durova^Charge 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was 3 months ago. Since then he did the 9RR on Schumacher's article and another 4RR yesterday, as well as continuing with the claims of vandalism. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me to clean my eyeglasses more often...you're right. Okay, I'll back a community topic ban. Who else wants to weigh in? Durova^Charge 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban. Cla68 07:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose community ban. 7 blocks in 3 months? Yikes. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent week-long ban seems to have been made in error. The user didn't commit a 3rr violation on the article in question (Michael Schumacher) and in-fact hasn't edited it since January 13, and the block was issued on January 15. I've granted the unblock request. That means his most recent block was in October, and I can't support community ban of someone who has not been blocked recently. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I don't know how the blocking admin was counting for that 3RR. And although some of the general behaviour of this user has appalled me, I think a community ban seems heavy. Having said that I'm astounded that the RFC was not resolved as far as I can see. In fact, I'm sorry to say this, it feels to me like I wasted a great deal of my time compiling evidence etc. for nothing. Mark83 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does one say formally "I suspect this IP address and that user to be one and the same person"? I've been looking at a set of reversions and edits to multiple related articles made in quick succession by a logged in user and an IP address. The edits have been primarily to remove a template that the user and the IP address feel should not be applied to articles, and no edit history is entered. My perception, which may well not reflect reality, is that the user logs in or out to revert additions of this template and avoid being accused of 3RR, though probably stops just short of it in any case (not that I have tested, I do not do revert wars!).

If one says it formally, where and how does one do it? I see it as a last resort if talk page attempts fail. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Diffs? Logging in and out to evade WP:3RR is gaming the system and clearly invites blocking. Incidentally, the lead of the controlled demolition hypothesis article keeps being rewritten as if the theory has some validity, which is a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying hard to assume good faith currently. I will point the user quietly at this item and see if that does not solve it :). The CDH article? I am hoping that eventually good encyclopaedic practice will prevail after people get tired of re-re-rewriting it. Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a long discussion about that very article on the mailing list a while back. I believe the consensus was that god encyclopaedic practice dictates a very short article :-) Guy (Help!) 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• God being omniscient, I'm sure his encyclopedia is totally comprehensive, which suggests the articles are vast in both detail and length. -- Ben 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they're referenced, too (grumbles). Proto::► 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original issue. I am not sure whether the same user is logged in and out to make the edits. It may be several like minded users, which is ok. There are now two IP based users, one is 67.180.110.244 and the current one is 152.131.10.133 each of which appear to track to different US locations. An article that is a case in point for the edits which keep removing the same template is Jim Hoffman whose history may be seen here. One could argue that this is a content dispute with some justification. There is one set of editors that feels the template Template:911ct should be present and another that feels it shoudl be absent. But wikipedia is a vehicle of consensus, and I see no attempts to build a consensus except my own. My reason for raising this is to check if the same user is logging in and out and thus seeking to evade 3RR. If this is multiple users with a similar opinion that is very different, and valid, though reaching a consensus would be far better. I'd like to hand this to a knowledgable admin, please. Fiddle Faddle 00:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A debate has been going on at WP:RFCN about whether to allow or disallow this username under the Wikipedia:Username policy. Most regular admin / senior editors who keep an eye on the board have opined and it's due some impartial closure, if an uninvolved party wants to weigh the merits of the debate and make a decision we can all move on. Deizio talk 10:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Proto::► 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to explain - given that it was 50-50 on whether the user name should be allowed, I've closed it as 'allow'. Particularly given that nobody bothered to inform the user that his name was being discussed. Proto::► 10:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet as... given the inactivity of the user, this was more a wikiphilosophy debate, although it would have obviously been good form for the nominator to drop a note on the talk page regardless. Deizio talk 12:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of interest, a lot of the cases on RFCN involve severely inactive users. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be something to point out that accounts can only be blocked not deleted? Anyone can trawl through special:listusers and find a vast number of users who violate username policies, but until they actually make edits there doesn't seem much point in wasting time on listing them at WP:RFCN. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* Personally, I think it is fine as-is; most of the time these are very clear-cut cases (such as Ken Fogerty and Poopfacekillah) that don't take much time at all. Besides, if we can nip them in the bud now, it saves time overall (especially for cases where they simply aren't going to be productive ever, like Poopfacekillah's). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a problem with 71Demon (talk · contribs). He uploaded a number of images with false licenses and kept on reverting the no-license tag. Eventually, we received confirmation from a senator's office that the license was incorrect but that the images were released to the public domain (and so usable on the Wikipedia). I corrected the image license. Now, though, I'm faced with a few edits like this: [55]

I believe 71Demon's actions warrant a block for this uncivil behaviour. His statements are also false; the images were not licensed under the GFDL as he falsely claimed. However, it would clearly be a conflict of interest for me to block this user. Could someone else take a look and block or warn as they see fit? --Yamla 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's already on a 48 hour block for incivility. I just got done moving all the discussions from the licensing section of the images to the talk page & I left him a little note that hopefully clarified the issue here, namely he didn't license the images correctly and then tried to put the burden of proof on other editors by just providing a weblisting and phone number to the originator of the photos (as well as not helping himself with incivility).--Isotope23 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uncivil behaviour is continuing:

[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], and [61], as well as [62] from an IP address. --Yamla 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71Demon has posted an unblock request (at least, I think it is an unblock request) to unblock-en-l. This will be available in the archives. --Yamla 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please protect 71Demon's talk page? He's continuing his uncivil behaviour and personal attacks there and I believe would be best off cooling down until the block expires. --Yamla 20:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please enable vandalism protection on Giant_Panda ICECommander 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be better off posting such requests on WP:RFPP _→AzaToth 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I only see 1 vandal (User:Kristelwa) as well as a bunch of well intentioned but ultimately incorrectly done reverts.--Isotope23 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK --ICECommander 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...has been move warring in Sweden Finns. He is a Swedish nationalist and is simply taking revenge from a dispute in another article. He moves the article against the consensus, not even properly explaining his actions. "Finland-Swede" and Sweden Finn are totally different things. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a stern warning about unilateral page moves. I say if he keeps doing it, report back here, or at least give him a {{mp4}} warning. Or a {{comment3}} warning. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent vandal edit to the main page FA [63] included what appears to be a person's name and their phone number. Can someone delete that from the history? Is oversight also necessary? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFO. It is orders of magnitude easier to hide one bad edit in a huge history via oversight than to delete the whole article and restore all but one edit. (suboptimal interface design) Thatcher131 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have sent an email requesting oversight. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearStep deleted when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisalign is very similar?

Thanks fursty 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply a much different degree of notability. (For example Invisalign gets 744000 hits on Google and Clearstep gets 1440.) Slideshow Bob 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 types of clear braces in the World both companies use different technics, does it matter that Invisalign is the larger company, surely both should be presented, maybe even on the same page.

fursty 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter. If a company is tiny or has no press about it we have no way to write a fair article on the subject within our guidelines and standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, earlier today, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo added a rather inflammatory statement to his user page, calling other Wikipedians liars [64]. Shortly after, he softened the wording slightly [65], but it still implies that other Wikipedians are liars. I know people generally have a lot of leeway for their user page, but I think this is going too far. Also, this user has been engaging in a long campaign of disruption and incivility on Talk:Tokusatsu and Tokusatsu, and given that the edits to his userpage were made in between inflammatory statements he made on Talk:Tokusatsu, I believe these edits may be attacks on some of the people he's picking fights with on Talk:Tokusatsu. jgp ^T_C 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with User:FasterPussycatWooHoo's actions on Talk:Tokusatsu, but unless he is specifically referencing editors by name I don't think this is actionable. Unless he is making a specific personal attack against someone, I'd just ignore it.--Isotope23 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2m34n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be practising how to move a page with my talk page? 68.39.174.238 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's Primetime up to his new favo(u)rite activity. Will request blocking on AIV. 68.39.174.238 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and here I was asking nicely why he was doing it...--Isotope23 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the page move vandalism and blocked him - this is the second time in the past hour this has happened, so someone sure has a lot of spare time on his hands :D. Now just deleting the leftovers. Cowman109^Talk 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I had strong suspicions but wanted to AGF too. It wasn't untill I saw his blatant text dumping I decided that it could only be Primetime and listed him on AIV and RFCU. 68.39.174.238 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LSLM was blocked for personal attacks [66] and "blocked for violation of the three-revert rule.", "Also for blanking vandalism and incivil edit comments." [67] and finally "blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of" his "disruptive edits" [68]. Now he's doing the same: [69]

"Do not even respond to Dark T. He makes no sense at all. Just look at his/her comments. Since administrators do not have what it takes to block people like that, at least just ignore people with severe mental diarrhoea.....Dark T. is a troll that defends strange Nazi-like ideas, that are even more extreme than the ones of the Nazis themselves.....let alone the opinions of Nazi-Nordicists that are an insult to intelligence." Lukas19 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More: [70]

"...Unfortunately the term white has been hijacked in such a way by extremists that I cannot understand how people can still use it to classify themselves. There are a lot of people who would be considered white that are ashamed of the term. I am from Europe, and I can tell you that this term is increasingly being used down here almost exclusively in Neo-Nazi circles...." Lukas19 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly blocked Britonamission (talk · contribs) for disruption: needlessly changing one spelling to the other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to make that an indef block -- the username suggests disruptive intent. -- Merope 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Clearly he is an experienced user, since his first edits were to his monobook. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support blocking this user indefinitely. His only edits are to change the spelling, even on WP:AN where it was obviously not necessary, thereby breaking every single <font> or <span> tag used in signatures for no reason other than disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That user was just trolling, but I must say the guidelines are unclear on which spelling should be used, for example I don't see why the article color should use the US spelling other than the (presumed) fact that all editors of the article agree on that title; if they didn't though, how would the issue be decided? The guidelines are of no help.--Rudjek 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the guidelines are pretty explicit. See WP:ENGVAR. In this case, stay with the established spelling and follow the dialect of the first contributor. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File for CheckUzer, this is strongly reminiscent of the British sockpuppeteer User:Sion glyn and his previous socks of User:Englishpound and User:Aperfectmanisaenglishman. 68.39.174.238 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and indefinitely blocked the account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can someone block this user: Universal prints limited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are spaming some scam. I've reverted the changes to date, except for his talk page. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Grandmasterka 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is the type of thing that Eric Goldman predicts will ultimately cause Wikipedia to "fail" ([71]). I think the administrators are doing a good job preventing the spammers from taking over so far. Cla68 00:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...I come to report incident...Big page Halloween (film) beeing spammed. Content is "CHECK IT MAN" when you click link you go to page...forbidden page... [72] ...very bad promotion of very bad site...assistance requested...URGENT Motherdapearl 22:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism appears to have been reverted (thanks for the report). Hope you don't mind but I've changed the topic title to something a little less dramatic. Feel free to revert to an earlier version of the page in its history if you encounter such vandalism again. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like admin's interference with behaviour of user Eupator. I have applied to assistance procedure regarding dispute on Urartu page. The dispute was considered and my editing was approved [73] SilkTork identified that future editing (my part) should be discussed with him. However, user Eupator (and Nareklm as well) did editing without further consultation. Eupator and other Armenian users are harrasing me, and they even don't conceal that they are revenging [74] ("since you opened that can of worms deal with the facts"). I have already complained about personal attack from Eupator on page Paytakaran. He went unpunished and continue his inappropriate behavior. You can look at my talk page - they placing questionable warnings on my talkpage [75] and other things, imposing their POV. Almost all my editing are checked by them and either reverted or in other manner modified. While I understand that from formal point of view everyone can edit what s/he want, there is also evidences of wikistalking. Such users like Eupator should be banned from editing. --Dacy69 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said that was a friendly notice you were one edit away from reaching the limit and no one has ever warned you so it was a friendly notice theres no reason for this and this was my first time not "Numerous" times as the sentence expresses itself. Also your post concerns me it is not wikistalking if you check the history ive posted here before so please don't even start accusing i have nearly 400 articles on my watch list. [76] the only reason you are reporting this is so that you can edit freely without people judging your edits that are POV or bias or misleading people. Nareklm 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern of this post is Eupator, not you, Nareklm, though you should also restrain from certain things. Since you always removed my edits I doubted your friendly notice which I don't need.--Dacy69 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RRParry (talk · contribs) User:RRParry has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images including those used for vandalism of articles. The particular image he tries to use at Richard Parry (musician) he has re-uploaded three times despite warnings that it is clearly a copyright violation and there is a cc-by-sa pic available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also been vandalizing the article on Police as seen here [77] and here [78]. AniMate 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Grkbkny69 (talk · contribs)

User:Grkbkny69 User continuously vandalizes pages of musicians he doesn't like and increases sales of artist he does like. He has been doing this for months and makes peoples jobs harder, and he has yet to be perma banned. He was banned in the past and came back with a second account. He needs to be blocked. License2Kill 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been working on the backlog at WP:RM, and the move request at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#...Requested move needs to be closed, but I don't want to do it, because I've taken part in the discussion, and it's a controversial one. I'd appreciate somebody uninvolved making the call. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the poll. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel really uncomfortable about what I've been noticing and think this should at least be brought up for attention here. I just noticed there is a recent string of Israeli law firms and lawyers up for AfD or tagged for notability and all of them have come from either User:Ju66l3r or User:Edcolins and with one exception, all of them include votes by one or the other, depending on who created the AfD. The AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yigal Arnon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Horowitz & Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamburger Evron & Co., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eitan Law Group . I find this very troubling possible vote stacking. At User talk:Ju66l3r, there is actual discussion between the two in deleting ALL Category:Law firms in Israel articles! [79] I won't charge an anti-israeli POV, but with all the anti-Semitism I've encountered recently in Wikipedia (I'm an active editor on the Richard Perle article for example, where I've had to delete some vicious anti-Semitic remarks [80]), I'm very disturbed that law firms or lawyers from this country are singled out for deletion. I've removed some of their added notability tags and added at least one reference every time.--Oakshade 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those anti-semitic remarks you deleted weren't posted by either of these editors. Did you miss this post where they revised the idea and trimmed down the number of firms they planned to nominate based on notability guidelines?[81] Bigotry certainly exists in the world, but WP:AGF says Wikipedians should be slow to conclude that in an ambiguous situation. Both of these are established editors with good track records. Durova^Charge 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to my response to your baseless suggestions. In short, I "random article'd" the first contribution I saw from Elite compact (talk · contribs) that I felt needed to be submitted to AfD. Further investigation showed a category largely populated with articles with no assertion of notability (and my opinion on that matter was validated by admins who deleted those articles per db-bio as tagged by Edcolins). For other articles, I felt some assertion was made, but unsubstantiated and my own searches could not provide any verifiable notability (other than existence and press releases). Those were submitted for AfD (and some of those are uncontested). The only reason I have been involved in a number of Israel-related articles is because the creator of those articles wrote articles that fell short of meeting notability guidelines. If that user had written a number of poor articles/stubs about Mexican gymnasts, then I would have just as readily discussed and submitted them all instead (and perhaps, I would still be here defending my good name against someone claiming I'm anti-Hispanic or anti-flexibility, who knows). Thanks for your passive-aggressive assertions tying my good faith work to anti-Semitism. ju66l3r 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ju6613r, since I've already called out Oakshade on the bias issue, that last sentence looks excessive. Would you be willing to do a strikethrough as a gesture of good faith? Durova^Charge 02:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right; I think that I was a bit excessive on retrospect. I was a bit heated after finding these same comments spammed across multiple AfDs that I chose to contribute or initiate on this topic (and had the comment replaced when I pushed it to the discussion talk page on one of them). Strike done, my apologies. ju66l3r 02:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Spammed" is offensive. The comments were edited in only 3 of of the AfD's of Israeli law firms. Under the same criteria, one could argue that tagging almost ALL of the Israel law firm articles with either notability tags or AfDs is a much greater example of spamming, but since I consider editing and constructive critisism of edits not spam, I withold such a slur as I wish you had. --Oakshade 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably all happened in good faith. Problems on one page aren't supposed to spill over into others, but we're all human. I'm glad there are people looking out for biased deletion campaigns because sometimes that does happen. Durova^Charge 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently blocked Ararat arev for 3RR violations (more like 6RR) on two articles. After being blocked for 3RR, he started editing under his IP address. I blocked that IP address for 2 days, and saw that he was back under a new address. I have also blocked this address for a week. I am now upgrading the block on the user from 2 days to one week because he has been avoiding a block that he fully deserved. Nishkid64 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe four days would have been sufficient (the extension being to encourage him to stop evading his block). The articles on which he has been revert-warring have been protected, meaning the additional lengthening would be more punitive than preventative. But a whole week isn't excessive, so I won't make a federal case out of it. -- tariqabjotu 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific edit history, genuine commitment to Armenia-related topics. I don't see the need to go harsh. Consider give-and-take. I've reduced blocks for editors who've negotiated. Suggest you offer to reduce the block to four days if this editor pledges not to make the same mistakes again. Durova^Charge 03:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's so prolific about his edit history? He hasn't done anything useful since he joined Wikipedia. In fact all he does now is wasting the time of several users and admins (just ask User:Dbachmann or User:Thanatosimii). 90% of all his contributions have been reverted. He has been here several months, tons of users and several admins have tried to make him read the rules, particularly the five pillars and he still doesn't get it. I think the block is well justified and should have been done sooner.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tariq has retracted his statement, as Ararat has used two more IP addresses to edit under. I don't see any potential deal making any progress here. He was blocked for 3RR violations just four days ago, and yet he continued to violate even though he was well aware he would be blocked. Nishkid64 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, no call for leniency. When this happens I caution the editor that longer blocks will be forthcoming from further evasion, then increase systematically and as soon as possible after each new infraction. They usually stop when they realize it's no game. Durova^Charge 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]