Purge the cache to refresh this page

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has continuously reinserted libellous information on Ahmadinejad article.[1][2] The sources which is used for the information has nothing to do with the information provided. It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain Jewish admins who monitor the article, to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING.[3] Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely user:Jayjg) not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage contrary to WP:IGNORE. [4] (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.[5])

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.[6][7]

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."^[1]

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.^[2]

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Wikipedia.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating WP:WTA and insisting on it and ignoring all the calls to honor it. --Pejman47 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For content disputes, please pursue the dispute resolution process. If you have WP:LIVING concerns, please use the noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by civil discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism is unacceptable, as is calling someone's edits "Jewish propaganda." Accusing someone of bias because of their religion or ethnicity borders on a personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office,[8][9][10][11] was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address WP:BLP issues is the BLP noticeboard. Alternatively or in addition, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Wikipedia editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet. Grandmasterka 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. I've just taken an interest in that page, and while there's certainly some POV-pushing all round, and a bit of ownership, I've seen nothing that suggests admin misconduct of any kind, let alone anything stemming from ethnic biases. Even if I had suspected the latter, the rules of engagement here on WP firmly abjure me from actually modifying my actions to act on that suspicion. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Wikipedia tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.) Phony Saint 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join the chorus of voices calling for at least a retraction of the Jewish administrators statement and preferably an apology. This site's assume good faith policy requires editors to seek reasonable explanations for each other's actions. This edit dispute had a legitimate basis in conflicting reference sources. The reasoning behind the Jewish administrators assertion appears to be that certain edits might have reflected a particular viewpoint on Middle Eastern politics - from there one editor leaps to an unwarranted assumption that those administrators had a political bias - and another unwarranted assumption that these people were violating WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in pursuit of that bias - and a third unwarranted assumption that the supposed bias originates in these individuals' religious/ethnic origin. Etymologically speaking, prejudice means to assert a conclusion before seeing adequate evidence. I've watched this dynamic operate at Wikipedia before and it really doesn't matter to me which group gets targeted: prejudice is always an obstacle to collaboration. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice, whether of editors, sources or conclusions, is always unhelpful and uncollegial. Gerash, apologise for your phraseology, retract the accusation, and read WP:DR. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because neither of the words admin or Jewish is negative, "Jewish admins" on Ahmadinejad article is not negative as well. It is used to categorize 4 admins, whom I did not want to name individually. Please note that if they were Muslim admins, then I would have said Muslim admins, and I am sure none of you would have mind that. It is very unfortunate that you fail to assume good faith per WP:AGF, because I have attempted to remove libellous and uncited comments from an article on a Muslim president, which contradicted WP:LIVING. Regrettably, this form of bad assumptions and calling a person who has attempted to adhere to to the WP:LIVING per Wikipedia's policies has resulted in severe and disgusting insults, such as being called "antisemitic". With this sort of paradox and negative views toward certain group of editors by assumptions of bad faith, I doubt that this behaviour by some Wikipedians is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. --Gerash77 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you Just Don't Get It, and that further discussion of the matter can serve no purpose. Let's all call it a day. Raymond Arritt 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am sorry for this sort of paradoxic response and offensive name-callings from some wikipedians.--Gerash77 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're sorry that the Jewish Cabal is ganging up on you and calling you names? Come on. This is trolling, plain and simple. You know what you did, you just want a pointy stick to poke things with. ThuranX 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerash, you can argue it all you want, but the phrase "Jewish admins" carries a negative implication whether you like it or not. We're not asking you to censor yourself, but to choose your words carefully, and to avoid making such comments in the future. You are engaging what the political world calls "parsing," and what psychologists call "rationalization," but the result is the same: that after the original intent of your words has been derided and condemned, you then find another excuse and reason to give a sense of mistinterpretation by others. Your continued denial will not obscure the fact that such comments, in whatever context, carry such a negative implication as to be found socially and morally reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has served one single useful purpose: to put an editor onto my radar screen. As I stated months ago at Raul's laws, any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much insults... So many threats. It is not surprising at all...--Gerash77 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threats? Now you're just imagining things. Especially as you started this by labeling some admins as Jewish. Phony Saint 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerash should certainly have chosen his words more carefully. There is a widespread problem on Middle Eastern articles with a clique pushing what's essentially an American/Israeli right-wing point of view, which seems to be what's going on here; just as elsewhere on Wikipedia there are problems with nationalist cliques, party political cliques, etc, etc. But labelling those cliques by their religious beliefs as "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever isn't helpful, and it's not an accurate description of the problem. -- ChrisO 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions concerning a recent matter. There are two interconnected issues, and the narrative below is presented chronologically.

Background

• User:Certified.Gangsta maintains a UI spoofing banner ("You have new messages") on his user page: see, e.g. [12].
• This has caused much controversy, leading in the end to this policy discussion, which appears to me and to a number of other editors (e.g. [13], [14], [15] to indicate a consensus, if not a policy, against UI spoofing (but no consensus regarding joke banners falling short of UI spoofing).
• Thereafter, User:Certified.Gangsta appeared to acquiesce to this consensus. For example, see my discussion with him at: User talk:Certified.Gangsta#Your user page banner.
• User:Certified.Gangsta's behaviour in this and other matters was at issue before the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, as a result of which User:certified.Gangsta is on revert parole, limited to one revert (other than clear vandalism) per page per week.

Current events

• Following a number of reverts by myself and several other users (of whom, btw, I know nothing)I reverted User:Certified.Gangsta's restoration of the UI spoofing banner to his user page, with explanation referring to community consensus on this point; previous reverts by other users similarly referred to this consensus.
• User:Sean William reverts my edit without an explanatory edit summary.
• User:Sean William posts this message on my talk page accusming me of "baiting" Certified.Gangsta into reverting.
• Because I was at no point trying to bait Certified.Gangsta, I was indignant at this failure to assume good faith by User:Sean William. I removed his accusations, posted this message on his talk page, and reverted his edit to User:Certified.Gangsta with the Undo function.

The questions on which I ask for guidance from experienced administrators are the following:

On UI spoofing

1. Is User:Certified.Gangsta entitled to add the UI spoofing banner to his user page?
2. If so, am I acting within policy in removing the UI spoofing banner?
3. Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation?

On baiting

1. Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block?
2. Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? --Sumple (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've heard one side of the story; now for the other. User:Certified.Gangsta was recently put under revert parole by the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram). I blocked him for 48 hours recently for violating this parole. (The circumstances for the block can be found on the arbitration block log and Certified.Gangsta's talk page.) Now, this user is not the first person to bait Certified.Gangsta to edit war with them; Ryulong blocked another user for doing the same thing. I can't recall who that user was off the top of my head, but I'm sure Ryulong knows. As far as I know, the UI spoofing discussion did not achieve consensus, and nothing was changed (although the practice is still strongly frowned upon). My revert was designed to go back to the original version, in hopes that Sumple would heed my warning and stop revert warring. However, he did not, as you can see. Comments on my conduct would be greatly appreciated; I'm not afraid of criticism. Sean William 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionheartX—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second here... wasn't this question asked On the Request For Arbitration (Request of Clarification) board ? MrMacMan ^Talk 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean William seems to be arguing that User:LionheartX's intentions are somehow imputed to me. He continues to fail to assume good faith on my behalf, and he has now added allegations of "edit warring" to his prior allegations of "baiting". In light of User:Sean William's post, I might add another two questions:

1. Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta?
2. Is my ability to edit Wikipedia somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? --Sumple (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the UI Discussion, including the Jimbo Wales letter, indicate that only malicious 'spoofing' is to be avoided, and that banners about new, shiatsu, erotic or swedish mAssages are simple wordplay jokes? That people are now seeking to bust a user on 'parole' for doing something NOT prohibited by policy for jollies, malice, or boredom should be seen as a bigger problem than that he's got the joke. Can we knock it off with any number of these childish things and focus on useful stuff? This whole thing seems like the userbox issues. The obviously offensive should be stopped according to existing policy, and common sense. Arguing that sweidish massage is inherently sexually charged, and offensive, is asinine, as is arguing that having Allah is Satan on a userbox is NOT hateful minortiy view trolling. I keep trying to NOT get frustrated with Wikipedia, but 'issue' after 'issue' of childish beefs makes it very hard to. ThuranX 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the "Swedish massage" message bar that was being warred over. Sean William 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. That's what all the reverts are about. He's got an obvious parody up, and a number of editors and admins who can't rise to the real challenges are out enforcing their perspectives on policy despite policy either being unclear, or the line defined by said policy being one requiring common sense, which isn't so common anymore, it seems. You can argue about if it's about him exceeding the reverts against his parole, but the obvious baiting by removing a NONoffensive spoof over and over, apparently b y multiple editors who are all waiting with 'baited' breath to pop him on it is 'dick-ish'. ThuranX 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err no. We were disputing about the "You have new messages" banner on his user page, not the "Swedish massages" banner on the talk page. --Sumple (Talk) 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six or half a dozen. Big deal, my comments still apply. Go improve Wikipedia, stop baiting the user. This whole mess reads like a bunch of people like to look at those on wikiparole like they are on real parole, and likely to criminally reoffend. They see someone on parole, and watch them like hawks, hoping the wiki-equivalent of jaywalking will occur, so they can get the parole revoked and get them off the project. It's like a truly screwed up Wiki-gentrification. It needs to stop. ThuranX 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not accept the presence of such practical joke banners: their only utility is to bring their posters a sense of pleasure at imagining that the are subjecting others to inconvenience and confusion, as they invariably do the first time they are encountered. While arguably a mild example of WP:BITE as they go, they are nevertheless objectively disruptive and add nothing of mitigating value.Proabivouac 02:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sumple: the thing with "baiting" is that it's a blatant violation of the Decency Principle, otherwise known as "don't be a dick". It is entirely possible to act like a dick without the subjective intent to be acting like a dick; it doesn't matter a bean what your intent is; once it's been pointed out you're acting like a dick, you really oughta stop acting like a dick. It also doesn't matter if you're attempting to "uphold community consensus"; you don't get to be a dick even when enforcing what you think are the rules. Regarding other editors' user pages: if you don't like the joke on the page, don't go to the page a second time. (If you fall for the joke a second time, well, oh my.) Stop looking for excuses to be an enforcer; go find some vandalism to revert instead. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on what basis do you label me a "dick"? --Sumple (Talk) 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?

Sumple removed the userpage banner. This happens to have been something that people have done before, so CertifiedGangsta was annoyed, and reverted it. I don't believe that he should be blocked for that, especially as it is his userpage. But anyway, how is that Sumple's fault, and why are we assuming that anyone who edit wars with someone under Arbcom sanction is deliberately harassing them? -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICK. You originally edited has page two months ago [16] and to this day seem to be under the impression that the UI spoofing talk actually came to a consensus against spoofing, despite others disagreeing. When somebody outside of you and Certified disagreed with the removal, that's kind of a sign that you should be talking instead of editing, even if consensus was backing you. Phony Saint 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling somebody else a dick is a form of dickery in itself, as Iamunknown points out below. In response to Amarkov: No, people who edit war with people sanctioned by ArbCom are not always harassing the user. However, deliberately starting edit wars with the intention of getting a user blocked is "harassment". I have assumed good faith until given evidence to the contrary. That evidence is here. "All of these show utter disregard for other Wikipedia users and Wikipedia itself. This, added to his offensive, racist, edit-warring behaviour, the refusal to discuss in good faith, frequent vandalism, and edit-warring, makes out a case for outright and permanent ban." Sumple, if you know that Certified.Gangsta is an edit-warrior and insists on having his fake new messages bar on his userpace, then why would you want to edit his userpage to remove the bar? Certified.Gangsta has reverted every attempt to do so in the past. What makes you think he'll stop this time? (I can't help but notice how much this resembles Carbonite's law.) Sean William 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm utterly confused as to why people won't simply be civil, assume good faith on Sumple's part (hey, he or she came here for open comments, he or she wasn't brought here) and just freakin' address the questions. Come on people. This is ridiculous. On the questions:

• Is User:Sean William entitled to revert my removal of the banner without explanation? - no well-intentioned edit, however misguided, should be reverted without at least a note (i.e. the "Undo" tool or a revert and a civil talk page note); preferrably none should be reverted, but using absolutives would not be in our best interest (e.g. well-intentioned but libellous or negative unsourced information of living people should be removed immediately, with a note afterwards)
• Can I be guilty of baiting without a subjective intention to provoke Certified.Gangsta into reverting and thereby attracting a block? - no, because you aren't baiting, simple as that
• Can I be guilty of baiting if my objectively determined intention, as disclosed by my edit pattern, edit history, and past statements, was not to bait Certified.Gangsta but to uphold community consensus and policy? - no, your edit was well-intentioned and you are, quite simply, not guilty of baiting
• Is the behaviour of User:LionheartX relevant to determining whether I am "baiting" Certified.Gangsta? - no, I think that block was a terrible precedent that should not be repeated
• Is my ability to edit Wikipedia somehow constrained by the remedy imposed on Certified.Gangsta by ArbCom? If so, what is the justification for that? - no, the case did not involve you

On UI spoofing, the consensus seemed to be that only malicious UI spoofs should be against policy; others are indeed frowned upon, but not removing them is probably best. --Iamunknown 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and remember folks, those who invoke WP:DICK are WP:DICKs :)[reply]

Looking into it, Sumple was previously involved with Certified.Gangsta as indicated at an RfC, the RfA workshop, and Sumple's talk page. Sumple apparently has more of a background with Certified and really should just leave him and his user page alone. Phony Saint 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good investigation. I do wish that folks would just leave harmless (i.e. "new messages" without a link to some disgusting article) UI spoofing alone. But I do not think that Sumple was in bad faith; again, he or she brought this issue here for discussion in an open forum -- few people readily do that. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't comment on the matter of UI spoofing or policies regarding an individual's userpage because I'm not too familiar with those. But this quickness to label someone as "baiting" an editor on revert parole, or even blocking an editor for it when he hasn't violated 3RR, is a little ridiculous. Where's the good faith? And believe it or not, most of these reverts are well justified. There are good reasons an editor is placed on revert parole and in most cases there have been thorough discussions on why certain editors' edits are bad and need to be reverted. Stop treating editors on revert parole with kid gloves. They are fully aware of what they're doing, they don't get to be on revert parole without having been warned about their actions over and over again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your previous involvement: [17], [18], and [19]. There's not much good faith when one editor who had a dispute with another editor begins an edit war on the other's user page. Phony Saint 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your point? Again, I won't comment on the UI spoofing or policies on userpages, and to note, I have not been edit warring on Certified's userpage myself. Having said that, Certified is the only editor that wants to see his version of the articles, there are numerous editors that revert his edits, and this is on the scale of a supermajority here. Believe it or not, some editors just make plain bad edits that need to be reverted, even if a lot of admins refuse to make a judgement call if only once in a while. There's a good reason why Certified is on revert parole and the rest of us are not, and it has something to do with his behaviour not just on one article, but across all of WP in general. Now that Certified has finally landed himself on revert parole for a year after all the bureaucracy of an ArbCom, he is still being treated with kid gloves. When did it happen that whenever someone reverts an editor on revert parole whom he previously had a dispute with, then it must be bad faith? His revert parole doesn't just apply to the articles he has edited before, it applies to all articles, this is an obvious clue to everybody that ArbCom has decided he needs to clean up his behaviour. Just block him if he breaks parole and nevermind accusing editors of baiting him. And I'm saying this as it could be applied to any editor on revert parole. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that Certified's edits on mainspace have nothing to do with his own user page, and that people previously involved in disputes with Certified should just stay away from his user page. Even if Certified is on parole, Sumple continually edited Certified's user page against the wishes of Certified as well as others - Sean William previously blocked him, yet still reverted Sumple's edits. Sumple cannot act as if he'd had no previous dispute with Certified, and wave away others' concerns about his edits by saying "I have consensus, see WP:USER and this talk page," neither of which indicate anything specific about the matter at hand. Phony Saint 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sumple did not "wave away" concerns. This conversation was started because he asked if what he did was justified. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He started when he reverted Irpen, so from the start he was disagreeing with a third party. Sumple already has a negative view of Certified as expressed in Certified's RfA (linked above) and at Sean William's talk page, and now is bothered at the fact that somebody actually disagreed with him and his "consensus" and "policy." Were he just a random person who stumbled upon Certified's page, I would assume good faith wholeheartedly, but as it is, Sumple and Certified have a past history which Sumple has decided not to disclose, making it very hard to believe his intention is purely to improve Wikipedia. Phony Saint 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is a parallel (but less lively) thread at WP:RFARB here. --Iamunknown 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents says leave the guy's banner alone. It's hard to take this issue at face value. If Sumple were acting in good faith I'd expect him to leave a polite request rather than remove a feature from another editor's user space. I'd also expect him to have a track record of similar polite requests at other user talk pages. And considering the past history between these two users and the timing shortly after the close of arbitration, I'd expect Sumple to act with particular discretion - such as posting a noticeboard query before acting or even bypassing CG among those polite requests - yet to my knowledge Sumple addressed no other editor than CG regarding this issue. That does give this the unseemly appearance of baiting. Surely we all have better things to do at Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Iamunknown for that reasoned response. You have answered my questions. Thank you.

User:Durova: You are right, that this type of matters should be discussed first. Indeed, other editors and I have on several occasions politely requested that User:Certified.Gangsta remove the banner. My most recent request was at: User talk:Certified.Gangsta#Your user page banner, where I politely suggested that he remove the banner, and he agreed, and restored to another, non-spoofing version. Surely you don't expect other users to repeatedly post such a message all the time. Would you do that, when you are dealing with a persistent editor who reneges on earlier agreement?

You are also right that I haven't edited anyone else's joke banner. The reason for that is simple: I don't know anyone else with such a banner!!!!!. Do you think I randomly click on User pages searching for UI spoofing banners? I'm afraid I have more constructive edits occupying my time. I only edited User:Certified.Gangsta's banner because his talk page happens to be somewhere I have edited and therefore I have watched.

User:Phony Saint, your unprincipled and illogical argument is a disgrace. You are assuming that I edited User:Certified.Gangsta's page in mala fides simply because I have been in past disputes with him. Has it crossed your mind that I have been in good faith when I had disputes with him too? Has it crossed your mind that perhaps I am able to disabuse my mind of past disputes? Obviously not. By your argument, a judge should never sit on a criminal case again if he rules against a government prosecutor in one case, because by disagreeing with the prosecution he has established his mala fides in all future cases involving the prosecution. Well, I sure am glad that you are not a judge.

A fortiori, I did not list all the previous encounters I have had with User:Certified.Gangsta, because of the basic principle that each dispute should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by applying consistent principles -- a principle, I have no doubt, you would not agree with. To you, any suspicion of guilt condemns a man to all accusations. I have not sought to hide my previous involvement with User:Certified.Gangsta on this issue. The other disputes, including my involvement in his RfC, are irrelevant to my original request for comments.

User:Sean William I continue to be appalled by each new argument you raise. As another user pointed out above, is User:Certified.Gangsta to be treated with kid gloves just because he revert wars? Because that seems to be what you advocate! "User:Sumple knows User:Certified.Gangsta edit wars --> User:Sumple reverts User:Certified.Gangsta --> Therefore User:Sumple is acting in bad faith (even though User:Sumple in all honesty believes he is following consensus or policy) --> Therefore User:Sumple should be blocked"???? Let's substitute that with a real life analogy: "Policeman A knows habitual criminal B is easily provoked into a murderous rage --> Policeman A arrests B for robbery, prompting B to go crazy and injure several bystanders --> Therefore Policeman A is acting in bad faith (even though he honestly believed B had committed robbery) --> Let's sack Policeman A!! Well, boy am I glad that you aren't running the police service of your community! In fact, I didn't assume (as you did) that User:Certified.Gangsta would go revert war just because someone removes his banner. A part of WP:AGF is assuming that another user would not automatically resort to inappropriate behaviour simply because he has done so in the past. Or does WP:AGF mean nothing to you? Maybe you owe an apology to User:Certified.Gangsta too in assuming that he would revert-war at any minuscule provocation.

I came here for clarification on the policy regarding User:Certified.Gangsta's banner, my behaviour, and User:Sean William's behaviour. I did not come here to be pre-judged by you as to my character. I am sorely disappointed by the behaviour some of the editors posting in this thread, who seem to groundlessly assume that others are scheming "dick"s who are incapable of acting objectively and in bona fides. Even more ridiculously, they assymetrically apply such a prejudgment to editors who are not disruptive, and who produce constructive edits, and, for some reason, not to disruptive editors who have been sanctioned by ArbCom! If I were to prejudge anyone, I would prejudge someone who had been officially sanctioned! wouldn't you? Or are criminals good honest blokes and all cops corrupt machinery of the capitalist state to you?

Wikipedia is meant to be fun. Asking for the opinions of more knowledgeable administrators on areas of uncertainty is one way to keep it fun. Well, you have just made it un-fun. I won't be back on Wikipedia for a while, if ever. --Sumple (Talk) 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was not meant to be fun. Nobody said it was going to be fun. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Maybe we should start treating it like one. Sean William 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia, the volunteer encyclopedia that expects you to help for ... what?" --Ideogram 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple (Talk) I completely agree with your point on the UI banner, I fell for it once and then learned to not believe the banner unless I see it in an article or non-user talk page. There are some though who may be concerned with rapidly answering new posts, and it's inconsiderate to them. However the problem is the community hasn't been given a fair chance to add all opinions. If I hadn't been watching the AN/I board I'd of probably missed it. Even if that happens a consensus may not be found, as is the case of WP:ATT but all who might be interested could at least opine. Anynobody 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UI spoofing is not a harmless joke. It needs to be included in the definition of vandalism, and I expect it will one day, but the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly. Meanwhile, WP:AGF does not mean that we do not distinguish between constructive and destructive edits... else why would bans and blocks exist? Perhaps Sumple could have warned rather than reveerting — perhaps &mash; but let's not confuse the cast of characters in this little drama. The UI spoof is still there. The editor has been warned that it is unacceptable to the community at large. I ask you, who is baiting who(m)? Which edit is an example of baiting? The UI spoof is baiting. It is playground behavior that skirts the (currently exisiting) rules... and is baiting because the editor knows it is considered unacceptable to the community,knows people have objected to it via warnings and reversion, and leaves it there. That's baiting, folks. Ling.Nut 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple, if you want impartial comments, file a WP:RFC against me. I've already argued my point, so I'm not going to bother to re-iterate it down here. Sean William 11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple, the fact that you and others obviously dislike Certified should have been stated from the beginning; if you wanted to be neutral, you would have stated your possible conflict of interest and why you didn't think it would affect this incident. Even if you believe that UI spoofing was against consensus or policy, you very well knew that it was Certified's user page you were editing and that you had a fairly good chance you wouldn't be neutral. As WP:HARASS states, "Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space." If you are clearly in the right, as you believe, a third party should also see your point of view as well. Which is where your judge analogy fails; judges and administrators are neutral third parties, and in this case you've been lambasting the third-party admin simply because he decided against you. Just leave Certified's page alone and let others deal with it. Phony Saint 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a problem with UI spoofing as long as it doesn't cause any detrimental effects (phishing, etc.) I see no problem with having a little bit of fun every once and a while. At least until there's WP:NOFUN. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate the feedback of some clueful users on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). As I'm sure you're aware, we have the occasional clash between American and British English, or between AD/BC and CE/BCE notation. It turns out that the same kind of debates occur about the difference between Kilobytes and Kibibytes. At present, the MOS indicates that one of these must be used, despite the obvious lack of consensus for that, and this MOS page is being upheld on grounds that changes to the MOS "must" be voted upon. If some experienced users could weigh in to clear up the misconception, that would resolve a lot. Radiant! 12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a Kibibyte? End of story. My laptop's cache rating is in kilobytes. My mp3 player's manual actually displays capacity in kilobytes: and it's written in Engrish. Bill Gates uses kilobytes. And once again: what the hell is a kibibyte? Seriously, ask any random person on the street which one is "correct" and you're more than likely to get kilobytes. Swatjester 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Did nobody else notice (and was nobody else angry?) that the "overlong page" warning was displayed in "kibibytes" yesterday? --kingboyk 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

1024000 bytes = 1024 kilobytes = 1000 kibibytes. It's just a case of making it clear which unit you're using. As for which one should be used in an article, the one with a conventional name or the one with a conventional size, that's something that'll have to be debated at the MOS page. --ais523 12:52, 10 May 2007

Well, I've long favored conventional usage for the same reason Swatjester mentions above. But many people disagree with that, and it appears unlikely that a consensus will form to standardize on one type or the other. As a result, I think the best outcome is to set a guideline similar to that on WP:MOS#National varieties of English, urging people to stay with established usage, follow the lead of the first contributor, and not go around changing things to one form without good reason. Unfortunately, there is one particular editor who is insistent that the present guideline must remain until there is a specific consensus to change it, and is willing to edit war to enforce his/her view. If ambiguity is a concern, there are ways this can be dealt with; for instance, footnotes or parenthetical notes could specify exactly how many bytes (usually 1024) is meant by "K", "KB", or "kilobyte". Crotalus horridus 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about here, but actually 1024 kilobytes is 1024*1024 bytes, or 1048576 bytes. Thank you, drive through. JuJube 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1024 kilo​bytes is 1024000 bytes, since one kilobyte is 1000 bytes. Even if you think "kibi" is silly, why not just use "KiB"? --Random832 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this issue is spawning several dozen edit wars (see here). Radiant! 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, a user has been altering a lot of articles recently to xis preferred version. This is somewhat reminiscent of that user with the both who kept changing date notations. Radiant! 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer binary prefix notation. The reasoning is simple: according to SI definition kilo means 10^3, mega means 10^6, etc. Kilo certainly doesn't mean 2^10, and likewise, mega doesn't mean 2^20. It gets even worse because in computing you will see the SI prefixes alternatively used to mean powers of ten and powers of two. This is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. We need to be unambiguous. So use the SI prefixes when you mean powers of ten (like when talking about hard drive capacity and bandwidth) and use the binary prefixes when talking about cache and memory capacity. --Cyde Weys 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing the point, Cyde. I'm not asking people to state their preferences. I'm asking for people to realize that there is no consensus to mandate either version in Wikipedia, just like there's no consensus to mandate Anno Domini or British English. Radiant! 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not missing the point. I've been following this argument for awhile. I was arguing against the people who are saying the binary prefix notation should never be used, when it is in fact the best way to state something un-ambiguously. --Cyde Weys 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of my personal preferences regarding binary SI prefixes, I agree with Radiant's warnings to several users about edit warring. "Enforcing the manual of style" is not a justification for causing disruption. I would encourage Radiant to lift the block on Sarenne early if he/she agrees to stop until the discussion is over. CMummert · talk 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a -big- problem with mandating binary prefix notation, and that is that as a consequence the common usage of "kB" (as in "kilobyte", or 1024 bytes) is changed to a new meaning as 1000 bytes. That is just -not- acceptable. Especially not for articles about older computers. There is also absolutely no sign that binary prefix notation will -ever- become mainstream in it's use. As an example, here you can find an encyclopedic entry from a mainstream computer magazine talks about this. [20] Mahjongg 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that a small group of people want to change the fact that the world in general doesn't give a wet slap about the corrcet usage. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. End of story, I'd say. If the world outside is Wrong, then Wikipedia must be Wrong. And when the world gets it Right we can reflect that. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eloquently put. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style guides are just that: guides to style. They can be helpful. Arguing over them is a bad idea, and those who insist on doing so get what they deserve. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins and edit warriors alike should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Edit warring to enforce a minority point of view, even if you feel it is technically more correct, is unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has the byte been an SI unit? (there is a reasonable discussion of the point at byte, as it happens) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has gone on for a long time it even had me blocked and labeled as a sock puppet for the same arguments above, ( i might be accused of being one of you for expressing my point) it all started when I reverted User:Sarenne for adding (what at the time I never herd of) MiB and GiB and so on several user including myself have fought against this change. It's not the norm to use the new prefix. My pc surly don't use it and im sure nobody eles does either. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's too bad you're so sure about nobody using it, because you're wrong. I've had the pleasure of using several applications now that use binary prefix notation, and many more are making it optional (including Azureus). It really doesn't help an argument to assert that something is true without evidence, and then, to top it off, it turns out to be wrong. --Cyde Weys 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if part of the problem is that people are interpreting "guidelines" in exactly the same way as "policy", and using the guidelines (like MoS) to make changes to articles without discussion, and possibly despite local consensus to do things differently. Surely guidelines do not give overriding authority over consensus? Notinasnaid 11:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. So much fuss over nothing. And yes, I do have an opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to say it, and that doesn't change the fact that people are getting worked up over nothing. --Deskana (AFK 47) 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), followup to #3rd party admin intervention requested

I've been working all day fixing up articles related to micronations, merging where necessary, improving if I can, adding maintenance templates, nominating the worst for deletion, and having discussions with several micronation enthusiasts without incident.

Now User:Gene Poole has returned from his 24 hour block and is obviously going through my contribs list; commenting on all my AfDs (some of which have very strong, near-speedy, rationales for deletion, one of which I shall probably withdraw as new sources come to light, others in between, but it's all the same to Gene) and calling them "spurious"; inciting another editor to roll me back; and basically rolling back all my hard work from the day citing "no consensus". I don't need consensus to carry out maintenance work, and I don't need to ask the Emperor before touching micronation articles.

I think he should have been blocked for the duration of the AFD he canvassed about; since he wasn't, would somebody keep an eye on this please? I'm off to bed and would be very disappointed to find he'd wiped out my day's work by the time I get up. --kingboyk 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. In the two hours since his block expired he reverted 12 times across 9 articles and only commented on one talk page. That's Edit warring by any measure even if it is not a technical 3RR violation. As this looks to be an ongoing thing, you two should think about mediation on a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to decide how to treat the different micronation articles. Thatcher131 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a good idea. As I wrote to JzG just now, though, I might just give up on this - let's see how the AfDs go, perhaps. I tried creating a guidelines page and that was tagged as rejected; I'm not sure that trying to clean up this little part of Wikipedia is worth the trouble. I can at least say with some pride that the New Utopia article has benefitted greatly, from this to this, with a pro-micronation editor helping out. It can be done! --kingboyk 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can only edit where you feel motivated to do so, but if it ever happens that an editor gains de facto control over a suite of articles it might be that other editors were driven away. You could also consider arbitration as this is apparently a long-standing problem. Thatcher131 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gene Poole account also has a history of sockpuppet use to try to get his way (see this ANI talk page discussion (archived)) so you might want to check any other accounts making edits on his side with similar edit histories. Plus, for those who haven't looked at the request for arbitration above, one of the articles the Gene Poole account is edit warring on has been shown to be about himself as self-appointed monarch of a micronation. This goes beyond mere edit warring to active self-promotional campaign and POV-pushing. DreamGuy 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene's actually rather careful and restrained with the Atlantium article, and has never hidden his connection there. Georgewilliamherbert 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Empire of Atlantium" is not a terribly bad article as it happens. I don't understand though why you, an admin, keep rushing to the defence of a user who edit wars, breachs WP:OWN, uses personal attacks and accusations of bad faith to try and win arguments, had a proven long term sockpuppet shut down, and an Arbcom case against him. The guy is a POV warrior, plain and simple and, AFAIC, he ought to be infefblocked. It might be excusable if he actually produced great articles, but I don't see any FAs or GAs in the micronations category. --kingboyk 11:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly because he appreciates the irony of comments such as the one immediately above, which manage to squeeze name-calling, bad faith accusations, half-truths and untruths about me into a rant wherein I am accused of - you guessed it - using name-calling, bad faith etc etc. Pot. Kettle. Black. --Gene_poole 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much name calling as tossing an idea into the wind that your presence here doesn't help the encyclopedia in any great way. --kingboyk 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to asume most people would view "The guy is a POV warrior, plain and simple" as something other than hearty jocularity. My contributions to WP over a period of 4 and a half years - which, among other things, include actively deleting more micronation and other "cruft" than you could imagine in your wildest dreams - speak for themselves, and I certainly don't need to justify my contributions to you. --Gene_poole 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:RX82004 (Contributions for consideration), an apparant SPA created to defend an article I tagged for speedy deletion appears to be trying to troll and harass me over the tagging of the article. Please see Talk:Chase Sampson and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television‎ to see what I mean. DarkSaber2k 10:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My neighorhood troll appears to back, according to this diff: [21] DarkSaber2k 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff ([22]) is yet another personal attack against me, in response to being warned about personal attacks. Apparantly the warning is 'irrelevent'. DarkSaber2k 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's received a final warning from User:Anetode, and has not made any attacks since. If he continues the same behavior, now that he's been warned, a block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days I have deleted material from the entry on Mike Farrell. The removed material clearly violated policy on BLP, NPOV, and was also plagiarised. Each time I deleted the material, it would be re-placed within 24 hours by either of two IP addresses. After deleting the material 3 or 4 times over several days, I placed this message on the talk page of both IP addresses. At one of these addresses, this reply has now been placed. In addition, this text accusing Farrell of "enabling terrorism" has been added to the entry, and this comment left on my talk page. Both of the IP addresses involved have virtually no edits other than to the Farrell entry. In short, both addresses appear dedicated to vandalising the Farrell entry, and have persisted in doing so in spite of warnings. I believe the time has come for administrator intervention in this matter. FNMF 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other IP address involved is the one on which I also placed this warning. FNMF 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first IP address has now also engaged in similar vandalism at the entry on Ed Asner, see for instance here. FNMF 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does look problematic. I'm not sure that FrontPage Magazine falls into WP:RS, considering the obvious strongly conservative lean of the posts being referred to by the anons. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• sprotected Mike Farrell, checking Ed Asner now. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Libsmasher is interesting. Looks like this is a long-time thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edits being made, and the name, "Libsmasher" doesn't seem like an appropriate User name. Corvus cornix 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I've indefinitely blocked Matrixism (talk · contribs), an obvious single-purpose account only created to stir up trouble with respect to the Matrixism article, which is presently on WP:DRV. >Radiant< 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a good block to me. Nothing good was going to come from a recreation of that particular page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note, this discussion has been moved from WP:AN, where it had been deleted)

Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently made an edit [23] to Wikipedia:Non-free content and then immediately protected his prefered version [24], in violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy, which states "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." This was not a case of vandalism or libel. In addition, another editor was blocked for 3RR violation on that same article (revert warring to Ed's preferred version), and Ed unblocked, another conflict of interest. Here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned_Scott reported by User:Tivedshambo (Result: 24 hours No block) I'd like to see the page in question either unprotected or reverted to the previous version, and I'd like to see some action taken to try and get Ed to stop his pattern of disruption. --Minderbinder 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, Ed has been reported for edit warring on 300 (film) twice. Edit warring by admins is really sad. Kyaa the Catlord 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for enforcing our policy. Hence no blocks. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree, the actions are disruptive and heinous. Perhaps this should be taken to WP:CN? Ed has a long pattern of disruption/abusive actions. Matthew 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A third note, he's also unblocked another editor (I'm half-certain another admin in this case) who is involved in the same edit war. Using admin powers to assist your side in an edit war... Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't unblock Ned to assist in the edit war. I protected the page to stop the edit war. ed g2s • talk 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned isn't an admin. While I don't 100% support a sole block against Ned... I also don't support Ed wheelwarring. Matthew 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should propose Ned for admin, then. :P (And yes, I agree that Ned's being the sole block in that case was wrong, but the correct response is to block all the edit warriors.) Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the revert warring at 300, he was initially blocked for 3RR violation but the block was removed per "enforcing policy" which 1) is arguable in this case since it's an instance where the policy is open to interpretation 2) isn't an exemption from 3RR. 3RR lists a few exceptions, and this clearly isn't one of them. --Minderbinder 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed wasn't "enforcing policy", he was "enforcing opinion". I believe that Ed needs to be admonished that his opinion doesn't over-rule consensus. Matthew 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god people, he's enforcing our damn foundation licensing policy. Thats not really an optional thing. Should he have protected a page he was involved in? Probably not, but this sort of hyperbole is akin to asking a cop to have his drivers license revoked for speeding to get to a crime scene. Foundation level policy is not a consensus issue, not now, not ever. The sooner this troupe of 'Damn the copyrights and lawsuits, full rights to all images everywhere!' editors realizes this, the sooner all the damn disruption will die down. -M^ask? 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if Ed is enforcing Foundation policy, but... and that's a big but: he isn't. He's enforcing opinion. Matthew 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of foundation level policy is a consensus issue. I'm not sure why Ed thinks that he gets to be the sole interpreter of it, and why he can enforce his opinion at any cost, consensus and policies be damned. And as for the "edit warring", five different editors added that text, none more than once - the only one edit warring there was Ned (and that looks more like consensus to add the text). --Minderbinder 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that so many users are trying to force in the ISA exception on our policy page by edit warring. The exception, as discussed at length on the talk page, is contradictory to the recent licensing resolution, and our long standing policies. Blocking a user trying to protect our policy page was nonsense. ed g2s • talk 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think calling him an "involved editor" is exactly correct here. The revert and protection were his only edits to that page in nearly 2 months, so I don't really think we can say he's involved in the edit war. I've seen several situations brought up on these boards where admins were backed for reverting to the version they thought was correct before protecting on pages where they had no heavy involvement. --OnoremDil 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is policy. Wikipedia's goal is not to be the world's prettiest encyclopedia but the world's greatest free encyclopedia. However, should anyone with a different point of view want to take further action against Ed, I suggest filing an arbitration case. Thatcher131 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on the greatest "free" encyclopedia, nonfree content is currently allowed by both the foundation and wikipedia policies within certain limits. The question isn't whether nonfree content is allowed, but where specifically it should be allowed. Inclusion of some nonfree content is contrary to neither the foundation or wikipedia goals. However, unilateral attempts to create restrictions beyond what is necesssary is contrary. Particularly when it is done by abuse of admin tools. Sadly, I think an arbcom case may be inevitable in this situation. --Minderbinder 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I don't see the need to spend more time at AN, because nothing's going to get done here. WP:RFAR is the way to go, ASAP is preferable. No need for more discussion here that won't achieve anything. Moreschi ^Talk 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring the case. I've cleared out quite a few lists and would not mind standing in front of the arbcom about it one bit. -M^ask? 14:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lost episodes

There is one more thing that needs to be discussed here, regarding the one image that is being fought over at List of Lost episodes. I have asked all the editors involved to work towards compromise, and I plan to block any editor who engages in revert warring rather than seeking compromise. I would like to know if other editors agree with this course of action. CMummert · talk 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed during the original debate that led to these images removal (how much is allowed, essentially). The consensus then was that an image used to show an episode (not, in my thinking, a title card at the top to illustrate the whole of the work) would require an amount of commentary that would not fit into a episode list, and if enough were added to justify the image, the list item's text would be moved to an article on the episode itself. -M^ask? 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to all editors was to move the image to the top of the list of episodes article. I agree that it's hard to justify the image otherwise. CMummert · talk 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this one image doesn't identify the whole work. A title card, or a paticularly iconic moment (Enterprise warping off, or something like that) is whats needed to qualify for the 'identification' exemption. -M^ask? 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the airplane crash an iconic moment for the Lost series? I don't really know, I haven't seen any episode, but that's what the fair use rationale says. CMummert · talk 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well could be, but its not explained anywhere. I look at that and I see 'screenshot from the middle of an episode'. If this can be claimed, put it at the top, in a box, with a caption. I honestly still believe the title card is always the way to go, but if editors are insisting on this image, thats the way it would need to be done. -M^ask? 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a title card adds significantly to the listing of the episodes/plot summaries. ed g2s • talk 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see all fair use go, personally, but if we keep them, Many feel it works to identify the work as a whole. If you feel they should go to, no arguments whatsoever from me. -M^ask? 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you wish to see all television and film (i.e. any media) articles go as well?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. We can talk about them, analyze them in a scholarly fashion, with no fair use images whatsoever. 2/3's of the other language wikipedias do this, disallowing fair use alltogether. They work fine. -M^ask? 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is, but its significance is not the subject of the "List of" article, which is for providing a list of the episodes and brief plot overviews. ed g2s • talk 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is significant to that article is a question that must be answered by discussion, not unilaterally decided by you. There is clearly an argument that can be made about the significance of that one image, and it has a fair use rationale that hints at that argument. Summarily removing the image short-circuits the necessary discussion. CMummert · talk 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ed g2s

Using admin tools to protect our high profile policy pages (with legal consequences) is anything but an abuse of power, and I stand firmly by my actions. ed g2s • talk 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I request that you resign your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? All I've done is protect a policy page. ed g2s • talk 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've shown an inability to use your position properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wants it :-P Cyde Weys 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in working with you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then its good thing that nobody is forcing you to. ed g2s • talk 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well that's too bad, you don't get a choice of who wish to work with at Wikipedia, and we flat out can't have administrators saying to each other "I won't work with you". I'll be sure to bring this up at your next RFA. --Cyde Weys 14:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, if there is an occasion where I'd bother with a next RfA, you won't be an administrator any longer and I won't have to worry about it. Don't be holding your breath for the opportunity, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hold your breath either. --Cyde Weys 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can certainly figure out which occasion is more likely, don't you worry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, honestly, not to be rude, but you sound like a couple 12 year olds. Jeff, go back to not caring what others think about you, Cyde, go back to not caring what others think about you. That worked well enough for long enough, no need to stop now. -M^ask? 14:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this isn't Romper Room. Let's try and be a bit grown up here.--Isotope23 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll behave myself better. There's no reason to get into pointless bickering. --Cyde Weys 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I support Ed here. I don't know what these other people are up to, but it looks like they were trying to inject a highly controversial (and in the end, counter-to-WMF-goals) section onto a policy page. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde: I am looking at List of Lost episodes, not a policy page. Ed was edit warring there and (look at my talk page) claims to have little interest in working towards a compromise. CMummert · talk 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see edit warring, I just see removing images used in violation of policy. --Cyde Weys 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy enough to move this image to the top of the article and add a little commentary. Reverting rather than improving is edit warring. Ed has enough experience to know that compromise is needed. CMummert · talk 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, it is not a case of edit the article to fit violating images. Our policy does not work like that. ed g2s • talk 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want me to say - "yes it does"? Be constructive. CMummert · talk 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. All I see is people trying to jury rig our rules on non-free content to allow silly decorative photographs. Nobody's really making a case about why the images are necessary — they're just trying to come up with excuses as to how they can use them. --Cyde Weys 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the image has a fair use rationale, and there is a case to be made about its use. So long as fair use images are allowed, each of these claims of fair use needs to be discussed and evaluated individually. It's true that this image is no less decorative than images used on many movie articles... The point is, ed g2s needs to discuss whether this fair use rationale is valid, not summarily reject it on his own initiative. CMummert · talk 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, the issue is beyond the scope of that talk page. ed g2s • talk 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the bickering seems to have subsided, I'd like to request that either Ed's edit be reverted or the page unprotected. --Minderbinder 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, so the nonsensical ISA notice can be reinserted? No thanks. --Cyde Weys 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing policy is good, but doing so when it's undergoing discussion is bad. Policies aren't written on stone, and they can be disputed on a certain issue (see for example the lengthy discussion of several established editors on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content). Probably the best solution here would be civilly explaining it, rather than reverting to the version you believe is correct, protecting the version your believe is correct, and unblocking the user you believe is correct. Just applying common sense here. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder appears to be on a personal campaign against Ed, it's gotten pretty far out of hand. As far as I can tell, he's deeply in the wrong here and Ed did okay. However, we could have avoided all this bickering if Ed just went and got someone else to help with the enforcement. In the future I hope that ed does that. --Gmaxwell 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. I do agree that admins should allow other non-involved admins to handle situations instead of violating policy. --Minderbinder 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better for Ed to ask an uninvolved admin to handle the situation. However, for my part, I fully agree with what he did. The Foundation clearly states that use of non-free images must be minimal, we cannot set policies to say "Well, but we can use this non-free image all over the place." If you don't like that restriction, ask the Foundation to change it or make an exception to it. It's out of our hands. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the concept of "minimal" differs from group to group. To assume that his perception of minimal is the correct one is not good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, steamrolling over opposition is a major reason there's so much conflict here in the first place. People should just calmly follow Wikipedia policy, instead of acting like this is some kind of crusade that calls for guerrilla warfare. Dealing with opposition in the most in-your-face way possible sets things back a lot here... I wish admins could realize that. --W.marsh 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User:ed g2s's actions (particularly the immediate unblocking of an editor who clearly violated our 3RR policy, because apparently User:ed g2s agreed with the violating editor) are reprehensible, and action needs to be taken immediately against User:ed g2s for abuse of admin powers. The worst thing about it is that he does not admit any wrongdoing but keeps chiming in to state that he was right to unblock the violating editor--when in fact ed g2s was part of the very dispute he unblocked over. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on for one more moment. Badagnani 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not a violation of 3RR to remove unlicensed images from an article. --Gmaxwell 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The violation was Ned Scott's reverting Wikipedia:Non-free content 4 times. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts are, if Ned Scott was blocked, others should have been too. Multiple people were edit warring. It doesn't matter that others didn't go beyond three reverts, that's an arbitrary number designed to calm potential edit blitzkriegs as distinguished from petty edit wars. Or, better yet, the page should have been protected as a consequence of that 3RR report in order to prevent any further edit warring and prevent all the good-faith editors from being blocked. --Iamunknown 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (Re Gmaxwell). I do consider it edit warring to repeatedly remove an image for which there is a plausible fair use rationale without discussing the validity of the rationale. Some measure of good faith must be assumed for people who have made an effort to follow the policies. The ultimate goal is compromise and consensus, which may or may not end up meaning that the image is removed. CMummert · talk 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an RFC page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ed g2s so that we can collect all this discussion in one place and get more views on it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? That isn't a valid RfC...why not keep the discussion here? --Iamunknown 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a once every two week topic here, but would someone please keep User:Rbj from abusing others thusly;[25] He's previously been blocked twice for incivility and harassment but continues to insist on attacking others. Odd nature 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you cite is indeed unfortunate, but generally admins only take admin action on WP:CIVIL matters that are really a lot more severe. While I appreciate that doing so is a thankless chore, I think that (if he has, as you say, a pattern of harassing and uncivil behaviour) an RFC or RFAr would be the next step. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cas of chronic incivility. He's rude, he engages in personal attacks, he gets blocked, he behaves decently for a while, and then the cycle repeats. This is about the third time in the last two weeks or so that I have been aware of. I'd say a community block is in order, but then I think I said that when he made the anti-semitic attacks on User:Orangemarlin last week...or maybe it was the week before when his name was brought up here for personal attacks the week before that... Guettarda 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, while the AGF concept is nice and all that, r-b-j needs to g-o as the likelihood of remediation is roughly the equivalent to that of a blizzard in the Amazon basin. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you all follow the steps in our Dispute resolution guidelines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dispute, Morven. What on earth is there to discuss? If you're suggesting an Rfc, all I can say is it would take days to paste all the diffs for personal attacks and hostility and disruption for this user, who has been asked politely, asked more pointedly, told outright, pointed in the direction of the civility and personal attack pages for his edification, and blocked repeatedly, most recently by me (for calling other editors stupid and lazy) - and although I certainly hope he takes my advice and reads up on civility and discussing the content, not the contributor, and applies it in his discussions with fellow editors - but I'm not holding my breath. The OrangeMarlin incident has never been resolved satisfactorily, and he used the attention on his talk page as a good audience for yet more snarky digs and outright abuse. There are times when an Rfc is simply a lot of time spent so people can say "Look, we followed dispute resolution - we knew it wouldn't do any good, but we also knew if we didn't act like Process Wonks no one would take action" - and this is one of those times. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a RFC or mediation would be pointless or has already been attempted, you can skip those steps so long as you justify them. Arbcom does accept cases that have not gone through those steps if the reason why not is argued well, or when the problem has been around for a long time without resolution and is clearly beyond RFC or mediation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom? I wasn't planning on wasting their time any more than I was planning on wasting anyone elses. I suggested community ban when the OrangeMarlin incident happened; see here. I note Avi felt the admins involved were terse, but it wasn't like it was his first offense, or his twentieth; check his block log - and trust me, he hasn't been blocked nearly as often as he could have been. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rbj is about the most uncivil editor I've ever seen, you needn't spend more than 5 minutes reviewing any discussion section of any article he chooses to edit. He's rude, anti-semitic, crude, dismissive, condescending, and an all around disruptive element. I've seen the administrators here do more for a lot less problematic editors. He claims he's protected by Jimbo Wales, and given the lack of interest in dealing with this person, except by administrators who have either been the brunt of his uncivil behavior, or have directly observed it, I'm wondering if it is true. Yes, I'm still angry about what I believe is blatant anti-semitism. I even filed a complaint, but of course, Rbj doesn't even get his pinky slapped. This is really frustrating. Orangemarlin 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some diffs for each of these offenses? Thank you. ThuranX 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did diffs. It was ignored. I give up. Orangemarlin 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to that, then? I'm not an admin, i'm just reading along, but I doubt most admins will spend half an hour crawling through things to find the problems. At least this time, someone's reading. ThuranX 05:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend the hours looking up everything that he's done. But here's the diff to my ANI regarding Rbj. No one commented. [26] Orangemarlin 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Undenting) Here [27] is the last version of that section before it got archived. Lots of people got involved. Lots of people commented, including me. Please don't misrepresent things like that. ThuranX 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I missed ALL of this commentary. I checked once or twice, saw nothing, and it's impossible to watch since there are so many posts to this area. By the time I checked back, it was archived, and I couldn't find it. Thanks. Still, nothing happened. Orangemarlin 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just spent 5 minutes reading over the comments on my previous ANI. I do not know how I missed all of these comments, but it still bothers me at the lack of resolution to this matter. I know that several editors and admins dealt with the matter in a very direct manner. But Rbj's attitude was petulant and moved from borderline to distinctively anti-Semitic. I quit reading his responses to the matter, but now that I've looked into it more, the comments that he made in response were offensive to me. How dare he make any commentary on my religious beliefs, whether it was real or not, or whether I did it to make a point to him. I always use G_d in talk space, and have since I've seriously started editing here. And in my private life, I always spell it that way. If I make an edit to the article, it always uses the full spelling, if I must. It is my belief, and I find it offensive on how he chose to respond. But I am just one tiny target of his dysfunctional behavior. He needs to go. Orangemarlin 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm bored, let me list out my favorite attacks from this editor:

1. Get an education
2. Accusations of lying
3. Jimbo protects Rbj
4. Passive aggressive behavior
5. Still the most despicable statement from his fingertips

Orangemarlin 07:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Came by to see this thread around, so I'll comment a bit. User:Rbj's actions gave me a bitter taste in my mouth during my encounter with him about the situation regarding the banning of User:Nkras. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So did my experience with him on the Marriage article. I'm sure I could go back through that and find all manner of him cursing out Bainer and Coelacan, and I believe some others as well. I see very little has changed since then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i've slept, I can reply to OM's comments above. OM, I read the last thread, and I think you're right, he's being a jerk. I also think that the lack of action last time has led to this editor escalating, as a result of a feeling of safety. As an involved(in wiki, not in this problem) regular editor, I'd like to see some action taken against Rbj. ThuranX 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What action(s) do editors feel are appropriate? I've suggested cutting thru the process mess and simply community banning, but no one has responded - would there be any objections? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite many warnings and chances given he appears chronically incivil and clearly the community has about lost it's patience with him, so continuing as-is is not an option. A community topic ban seems a reasonable solution, and one that I would support. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topical ban at least, if not a complete ban; at this point those would be the only options in my view. Is anyone suggesting that an overall ban is too harsh, and that we should just stick with a topical ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the behavior occurs on every topic Rbj touches. Before Intelligent Design it was going on at Talk:Homophobia, which even led to Rbj vandalizing someone's userpage. ··coelacan 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A community ban is the only remedy for someone who is beyond normal remediation. Enough of r-b-j, one of the most tendentious, disruptive, disrespectful editors I have ever had the displeasure of running across. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – AfD closed, result was Delete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some other admins to monitor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal Sex in Hadith? I've been watching it for the last day and have had to tag a bunch of SPAs on there. It'd also be good if some others can watch the article too. Some editors keep adding the {{hangon}} tag to the article despite its lack of speedy deletion status. Much appreciated, Metros232 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it. We'll need to do a checkuser run once it's over; there's undoubtedly sockpuppetry going on here. -- ChrisO 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked more like meat puppets to me. Somebody told them to all come sign up and vote to save the article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I see they've all been removed now. The AfD was stuck in the backlog anyway - as it's over 5 days old I've closed it as delete and deleted the article. -- ChrisO 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Anal Sex in Islam and Oral Sex in Islam. All of which are unresearched, and unverifiable by RELIABLE source (but god forbid you call a non-notable Imam's intepretation of the Koran an "unreliable source". Technically by definition, Hadith is unreliable sources anyway, as they're original research: They basically amount to "I heard the Prophet say X". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were these articles oversighted? They both show up as redlinks and I don't see anything in the deletion log for either. *** Crotalus *** 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log entries are showing up for me OK here, also all the deleted revisions are still intact. Krimpet (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Mythology, I am trying to have a dialogue with another editor, DreamGuy, but he seems unwilling to respond to my latest comments, which appears to be poor etiquette ("Work toward agreement .. Don't ignore questions.") See for example my comments in the section "Pseudohistory" on 6 May 2007 [28] which have no response. Now he has accused me of lying,[29] While I am quite tough-skinned, this is quite uncivil ("Calling someone a liar"), and is not constructive. Please can you remind DreamGuy that (a) calling someone a liar is not civil (b) not replying to comments is poor etiquette. --84.9.191.165 08:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy has a history of being abusive to editors (myself included, when I was a lowly little newbie). While I'd love to take him down a few notches, I have to recuse myself because of our history. Anyone else want to handle this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a pretty similar situation. It'd be rather ironic if no-one will do anything about him because of that reason. Petros471 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously sad. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is policy, Wikipedia:Etiquette isn't, and I really don't think there's any consensus for forcing people to answer questions or engage in dialogue if they don't want to. Indeed I'm quite sure there are some long term editors who never even read their own talk page.

dispute resolution is always a possibility. In the meantime, I'll have a look at the diff and contribs and perhaps ask him to tone it down a bit, especially if there have been serious breaches of WP:CIVIL. --kingboyk 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the diff provided would appear to be a petty example according to WP:CIVIL, and it seems to have come in the midst of a long running content dispute. I'll drop him a note but it will be soft in tone as it seems to me to be the result of a content dispute. It's not unusual for tempers to flare in these situations. Of course, where you are right is that tempers are usually best calmed down by quietly discussing the issues. (I can say this for certain having been there myself recently). --kingboyk 16:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I have no faith that it'll work, but good luck! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, DreamGuy has already been the subject of two RfCs,[30][31] and one RfAr.[32] Plus, just over the last few weeks, he's been the subject of at least two other ANI threads.[33][34]] Most recently he was on ANI for using anon IP sockpuppets to engage in edit wars and generate abuse towards other editors; as a result, he has been banned from using anonymous accounts on Wikipedia, since it's seen as a violation of WP:SOCK, "avoiding scrutiny by other editors."[35] See also User talk:216.165.158.7. And unfortunately, on any of his accounts, it's usually necessary to delve into the talkpage history rather than reading what's left on the page, since he has a habit of deleting warnings (of which there are many). I think he's been given plenty of opportunities to improve his behavior, and we need to stop giving him additional chances. Either he agrees to participate in a civil and constructive way with other editors, or he shouldn't be allowed to participate here anymore. --Elonka 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted here that the RFC and RFAr were from *two years ago* or longer. I was not using (and have never used) any IP address as a sockpuppet. I simply did not always sign on, which there is no rule against, and it was in fact encouraged by several admins to try to lessen Elonka's ongoing harassment. This accusation is yet another example of people with grudges making up nonsense as they go along to try to lash out at me. The admins involved in those recent bans are the same admins currently greatly under fire across this project for not following policy. If you're looking for someone with a proven history of sockpuppets to try to get their way, one only has to look at Elonka's very own request for adminship. DreamGuy 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it sounds like we need to take more serious measures until he gets it (or, if he doesn't get it, he'll just end up being banned). --Cyde Weys 17:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just calling a WP:SPADE a spade...he has always been blunt and to the point. It's just social discourse in articles that sometimes have disputes and though I do suggest he try and be cooler about it, I also don't see ebough cause here to block him.--MONGO 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "calling a spade a spade" worsen a lot more situations than I've seen it improve, and I've seen proponents of that philosophy come to grief, both on-wiki and off. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, calling me a spammer because I'm adding a wikilink to a book[36] doesn't strike me as being quite the same thing as the "a spade's a spade" bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this correctly... you are complaining about an edit comment from *15 MONTHS AGO* to justify trying to take action against me now? Furthermore, you were inserting a whole section about one modern *parody* book on a page about a real topic quite aggressively for no real encyclopedic reason. That certainly looks like spam. But once there were some reasons actually given for why it might be considering encyclopedic (but it still seems out of place to be mentioned on the main zombie page... has this joke book really been important enough to be mentioned in the history of zombie folklore?) I stopped and let it stay. Before then I removed it, just as anyone seeing such a situation should. Why are you still so bent out of shape over it? nd why do you think your petty complaint from Feb. 2006 is relevant today? DreamGuy 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...uh, you do realize that I said that I wasn't going to do anything, right? I may want to, sure, but there's a difference between thinking and doing; I thought I'd made an adequate distinction between the two.
As for the age of the diff, forgive me; I've done my best to stay the hell away from you ever since then, given your (obviously still active) hostility. I still remember you telling me "why the hell are you still here?" when I had the audacity to post on your talk page a month or so after we'd had our little spat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I had forgotten that you were the person involved in trying to give free advertising to that book until you brought it up. It's rather pot calling the kettle black of you to try to take my responding to you bring up something from 15 months ago as *me* being "obviously still active" hostile. You can't just make an attack and then complain when someone responds. Civility would be moving on. You obviously haven't. But, yes, thanks for not doing anything to ban me based upon your longheld personal grudge. It's a weird sort of situation where you expect me to be grateful that you don't violate policy to take improper actions based upon a petty personal conflict from long ago. So, yeah, thanks. DreamGuy 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think you've completely misunderstood everything I've said. It's obvious all we're going to do is get angry with each other, so I'm just gonna bow out of it; I've got better things to do. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite ironic to see EVula very properly recusing himself because of an old conflict, but Elonka by contrast picking up the glove, with no indication of the ancient enmity between herself and DreamGuy. (For a short introduction to this conflict, including my role, for I played one, see Elonka's RFA) Elonka, it's time to let go, already. Practice seeing a mention of DreamGuy and not jumping in. I'm glad to see Kingboyk note the pettiness of the issue. For what has DreamGuy done now, to have a ban suggested? After replying to 84.9.191.165's complaints several times on his talkpage, he has failed to reply to further repetition of them. That's it. Having followed this at a distance, I was actually just about to drop a note on the IP to suggest s/he stops nagging at DreamGuy, as DG has already replied and explained the matter of fact--the original complaint--and that 84.9.191.165 is mistaken in thinking herself/himself wronged. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

May I offer two cents as a neutral outsider? I've been known to take a hard line on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, yet I like to extend an open hand to positive contributors who run into trouble under tough field conditions. I agree DreamGuy is on a problematic path. What can we do as a community to help him pull back before he reaches the brink?

Bear in mind that it doesn't set a good example for new users to be tolerant of bad behavior from an established editor. I'd like to retain dedicated people who help the project, yet I don't want to act in ways that validate accusations about double standards. Let's seek the right balance here before things reach a critical point. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that despite years of complaints from other editors, DreamGuy has never acknowledged that his behavior has been a problem. No matter how many editors bring up concerns, DreamGuy tends to respond with rage and counter-accusations, ranging from "seed of truth" comments to out and out falsehoods, usually including accusations of everyone harassing him. In order for the community to give DreamGuy another chance, what I would like to see is a genuine acknowledgement from DreamGuy that he is aware of past problems, and a promise from him that he is going to try and do better in the future. Those would go a long way with me. --Elonka 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has he been notified of this thread? As I understand this situation, most of the parties who comment have been involved for a while. Good faith has worn thin and this hasn't been moving toward a positive resolution. Community enforceable mediation might be one option worth exploring. Let's think outside the box and see how something useful could move forward. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy was informed by kingboyk.[37] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka is complaining that *I* don't acknowledge that my behavior has been a problem? OK, considering it was her not admitting that her actions were wrong which contributed to her failed request for admin status (that and a nice stack of sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes that came out of nowhere once it looked like she miht not have enough)... What she fails to remember is that I *did* apologize to her for those parts that were incorrect, and I did step up to the ANI page to say that her permanent ban for wikistalking me was out of line and helped overturn it. I have also apologized for any number of mistakes over the years, primarily being that I have a hot temper and admit that. I stay away from articles once they get too heated and only return months later. I have already told everyone who ever asked me to go for admin that I don't have the temperment. But I am not going to apologize for some of the nonsense attacks certain editors are still making years later based upon their feelings being hurt when they have never apologized (or even tried to act civil to me) for their aggressive threats and policy-breaking and so forth. I just move on and go edit the encyclopedia and they seem to be sitting around tossing darts at my photo and hoping to be able to twist something sometime into something they can lash out at me about. If we want to talk about people with civility problems and bad faith, we've got some good examples in this thread, but I'm certainly not the worst of the bunch by any means, and I at least move on. DreamGuy 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all this hand-wringing about civlity would go a lot further if more people would take the time to investigate the claims of people complaining about civility to peer under the smokescreen and see what's going on. The anon IP who started this particular latest thread has a history of inserting pro-Catastrophism POV-pushing into articles, and the action he is his complaining about wouldn't even rate any comment at all (especially in comparison to him refusing to acknowledge that his complaint was already discussed and everything he asked for given while he still merrily pushes his POV against consensus) if it weren't for a number of people here upset about past conflicts. Civility works both ways, you know, and EVula and others feeling like they can say that they want me "taken down a peg" or whatever shows what the real problem is. Go through my edit history of late and you will see tons and tons of janitorial work improving this encyclopedia, along with harassment from the standard line of POV-pushers, spammers and others actively violating policies for their own personal agendas. Everytime one of these people has some complaint they have learned (from looking at history) to go off and compain and that *I* end up being abused for standing up to them. Wikipedia is broken, frankly, if you een waste your time trying to come up with ways to punish me primarily for things I did in my past (most of them blown way out of proportion as well, actively assisted by people holding grudges) and not anything current. So, please, while talking about civility and good faith, please try to follow those yourself when dealing with me. People abusing the system and not even trying to follow rules piss me off (as it should anyone who cares about this project), and I am working very hard to be as civil as necessary. It looks like other people aren't willing to be civil or assume good faith themselves. Same old faces, same old complaints. I'm doing what I am supposed to be doing, so give me some credit and don't let anyone who comes along with a very one-sided and ridiculous complaint have you pull out the torches and pitchforks. DreamGuy 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally checked the contributions of 84.9.191.165 and this Catastrophism dispute only goes back by a couple weeks, with the anon making only two reverts, immediately going to the talk page after your first revert. I'm afraid I have to say that to me you appear to be someone who lacks a great amount of assuming good faith, especially towards anons. There's no rule to be unable to refuse to answer a question or engage in dialogue, but this is part of a dispute. If you refuse to speak and instead revert, you are trying to create conflict. There has been no agreement in the dispute so far and instead you've ignored the other party. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute reminds me of an old sore my grandmother used to have on her ankle. She kept scratching it because it itched, and because she scratched it kept flaking and itching. That sore had been there as long as I could remember and when I asked her about it she said she'd have it until she died. One day she was reaching down to scratch again and I couldn't stand to watch: I got some ice out of the kitchen. Maybe because I asked her nicely, she started icing that sore and it actually healed.

So do you want to keep scratching each other the wrong way or would you rather find a way to ice this? WP:CEM is the best I can offer to help cool things down. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Beatles Fab Four was blocked for inappropriate username and "consider yourself also temporarily blocked for, and warned about, disruptive editing on Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. This includes edit warring, breaking the three revert rule, and breaches of civility".

Instantly after that, user Beatle Fab Four appeared and started the same edit war. He was again banned.

Then, after a while, same edit warring started from several IP's (links are to contributions list):

• 85.140.211.220 [38].
• 85.140.243.184 [39].
• 84.249.52.136 [40] (also vandalized my user page ([41]), but I am not sure it was him. Same style, though - disregard of Wikipedia rules, writing comments using bold).
• 85.140.211.200 [42] (in this case, it is definitely him: [43]).
• 193.232.195.136 [44] (probably switching to modem).
• 85.140.209.118 [45].
• 85.140.243.52 [46].
• 85.140.209.67 [47].

Also, at some point user User:Nazis Hunter appeared and started same edit warring. User Staberinde requested a checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beatle Fab Four), with result "likely" from two administrators.

Now the original ban for Beatle Fab Four has ended and he is back using that nick again.

I am not quite sure what it is possible to do, as this user shows total disregard to Wikipedia rules and authorities (threatening administrator Sandstein, [48], also threatening me with Mossad, but I assume that was an attempt to joke). Bans are not effective, as the user is obviously on dynamic IP and will evade - I'd wouldn't like to apply for semi-protection for the article he stalks, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, as there have been quite a lot good edits from unregistered users, besides, most of his edits are now on talk page.

In any case, I would like to report him for repeated block evasion. DLX 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. And I'm not a vandal. On the contrary, this DLX constanly tries to purge controversian articles on the political events, avoids controversies rosolving procedures and cherry-picks admins to block users who disagree with him. In addition, he constanly expresses pro-Nazis view in discussions, which I stronly believe is inappropriate in Wiki community. Best regards Beatle Fab Four 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying. I haven't tried to "purge controversian articles" - give me even one example where I have done that. And my "pro-Nazis" views exist only in your imagination, I deeply dislike both nazis and communists - they are both equally evil, as far as I am concerned. As for "rosolving procedures", please give an example of avoiding those? Asking you several times to discuss your POV changes is "avoiding", apparently? DLX 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm anti-communist. So what? There are no exuses for pro-Nazis. They should discuss their views elsewhere. In prison, I presume. Beatle Fab Four 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DLX, you started an edit war once all those not-reliablr sorcess you loaded were nocked-out by reliable one (For example me giving you quotes from the bock written by a Nazi Soldier, Tiggers in the Mudd, and by that nocking you out from half of your claims). Fab Four nocked you even in a more elegant way, giving a part of speach from your Prime-Minister where he admitts that Estonians colloborated with the Nazis. Once you lost, you started runing and complaining to admnistrators who feel bossy but dont even care to learn the case. You try to blame others for stuff you did. If anyone should be blocked, it's you. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So what has that got to do with me? Truth isn't pro-nazi, but denying the truth is worse then being pro-Nazi. And still no evidence of "purge controversian articles", I see. DLX 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Beatle Fab Four is the agitator, and edits where it looks like he's trying to pass himself off as DLX [49] are also concerning. (He may be trying to indicate who is saying the things he objects to, his english seems lacking.) ThuranX 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that was not the case there (ie trying to pass as me), it is his style of editing - he comments into middle of comments by others, removes his own comments etc. At least I don't see that as trying to be me. DLX 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent) I originally blocked Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) (previously Beatles Fab Four (talk · contribs)) for disruption (mostly personal attacks and incivilities). I noticed the block evasion, but since he's editing from a dynamic IP, I refrained from blocking the whole IP range so as not to cause collateral damage to uninvolved editors. Nonetheless, in the case of any further disruption by this user or his socks, I will lock that IP range down. Beatle, for the last time: you are welcome to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but you must refrain from attacking others. Sandstein 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt even learn the case, if you would learn it you would understand how your speach doesnt fit here. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked its DLX (talk · contribs) and Sandstein (talk · contribs). DLX started vandalising articles by writing stuff that try to put Estonians coloborating with the Nazis as "Inoccent". He supported those facts with NOT reliable websites. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) and User:Nazis Hunter tried to fight those acts of vandalism by deleting those lies from articles, but DLX started an Edit War against those users, but couldn't win it. He started an argumment on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn talk page, but when all the "facts" he tried to present were smashed he turned to Sandstein so to block Beatles Fab Four. Fab Four offcourse defended himself. Sandstein, WITHOUT learning the case, blocked Beatles fab for. When i tried to protest, he blocked me to, nevertheless, he didnt do anything to DLX. Yes, in the argument Fab Four made more then 3 reverts, but it was not his fault. DLX was the one who startyed an edit war, and by not following by the 3 revert rule in order to fight vandalism, Fab Four followed a more importent rule, that many administrators seem just not to know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules so if somthing should be done about this case, is blocking DLX and taking the administratoe role from Sandstein. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Sandstein tries to fight me in a more "mature" way, saying that images i uploaded to Fab Four are not free domian, while i copied there licence execlly as theye were written on their original pages on Wikipedia. As i said, he isn't checking anything, is that what an administrator should be like? someone who isn't checking licence before he staits somthing about using those images? Someone who blockes people without learning the case? He isn't justifing his status. M.V.E.i. 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about finally giving some example where I "vandalised" an article? You both keep saying that without giving even one example of that - while my edit history is visible for anyone. I have provably not done anything you claim that I've done - however, you have failed to show any evidence to your silly (and quite frankly, insulting, racist and hate-mongering) claims like "They baltic people feel little, useless. Everything that the baltic countries now have is thanks to the Soviet Unian. Technology, ruads, everything, and that makes them hate soviets even more. In their everyday life they see that all that they have, was made by the Soviets, and that makes them feel small, and that makes them hate the Soviets.", "The Baltic tribes were always considered the most primitive among Europe. You forgot how your Baltic union The Lithuanian Kingdom in the middle ages started a war against Russians? You started it, so relax. The Russians were to soft ith you, you deserved more. Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people). How excacly did we take your freedom?? We gave you technology, everything.". Do I need to say more about you then "there not considered people"? That shows very clearly what kind of person you are, I think.

User:Nazis Hunter and user:Beatle Fab Four are the same person, evading block, something strictly against Wikipedia rules. Nothing excuses uncivility and rudeness. Oh, and sorry to burst your little pseudohistoric bubble, but there has never been "The Lithuanian Kingdom" DLX 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have never been that kind of kingdom? unfortunately, there has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Lithuania you dont even know your own baltic history. And then in turned into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania . I cant give examples because Fab deleted those plces were you vandalized, but if anyone would like, your all welcome to enter the Bronze Liberator talk page, and see the lies that DMX was repeating over and over, and us smashing that with facts and real proves. M.V.E.i. 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was Grand Duchy of Lithuania (please learn to create Wikilinks). That is not the same as "The Lithuanian Kingdom", (there were two Kingdoms of Lithuania, neither started a war against Russia). Also, all Wikipedia pages have a magical thing called history where you can see all changes done by anyone, ever. So, please go now to history of the article in question and show me exactly where I "vandalised" the article. Or otherwise, stop your bickering, insults and lies, please. DLX 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offer somthing better, lets visit the talk page, its full with your lies. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor User:Counter-revolutionary has made this edit here [50]. I have suggested on his talk that he does not do it again. Perhaps it would be better though if an Admin explained the consequences of such edits. From his page he seems to be upsetting a few others too - perhaps a polite reminder would nip this behaviour in the bud. Giano 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it appears thisis not the first incident regarding him and this page. [51] I don't think we can have established eitors referring to the subject of a biography as a "cow" not in main space anyway. Giano 12:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually brought this up before, as he was stalking my edits that day. For example I made this edit to an AfD at 20:08 and he votes 1 minute later. Then when I reverted vandalism to the above article, his edit put it back five minutes later. I have no objections to anyone checking my contributions, as that's why they are logged, but I regard his actions as going beyond that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm begining not to like what I'm seeing here, [52] especially when one looks at Peabody's talk page. Giano 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your link shows General Peabody trying to set up a revert tag team, and here's another one:[53]. But note that he's a brand new user, I guess that's why people are being extra patient. (FWIW, he looks like a genuine noob, too--a sock would know to do these things more discreetly.) Bishonen | talk 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The user hasn't edited since Giano put a note on his page. But just to make it clear that we seriously can't have such behaviour on a WP:BLP page, I dropped a message myself, too. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• The edit, and be aware I didn't write its contents, was a mistake! I shouldn't have made it. --Counter-revolutionary 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm quite struck by this. You reinstated an edit by somebody else without reading it...? How does something like that happen? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think Bishonen is referring to this surprising admission. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error on my part! --Counter-revolutionary 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An error, to be sure. On that point we can all agree. But, it seems, the error is the result of a campaign on your part to revert anything done by One Night In Hackney. He reverted an ignorant, shameful comment, and you were quick to simply revert what he had done without being bothered to look. I find that disturbing, and what I find even more disturbing is that you seem to be motivated to do so by ideology, and not what is best for Wikipedia. ---Charles 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The horse is dead, quit tormenting it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit summary: m (Perhaps if they could source it...) doesn't look as if it were something you reverted without reading. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – user blocked for disruption for 31 hours by Metros232

The userpage of LooneyGeoffrey, found here, contains some comments which some users may find offensive, particularly Geoffrey's comments about religion. The comments attack Protestants and Atheists. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{soremoveit}}. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments, at least about atheists, are back; especially troubling is this hidden comment. Phony Saint 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, um, this. He deliberately doesn't want to stop preaching. Phony Saint 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question to any administrator who comes across this: Blatantly, what should we do with the situation? Should we block the user, as he's been extremely disruptive, or give him a warning, or what? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for disruption. I'm sure the appeal will be up here soon or something. ThuranX 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked him for the disruptions for 31 hours. Metros232 19:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has admitted that his account is a sockpuppet [61]. Despite his contention that his activities are consistent with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, TheDeciderDecides has actually engaged in extensive disruption, such as the creation of the frivolous AFD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, and contentious editing [62] [63] [64]. John254 18:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much, and the Malkin article makes light of and is dismissive of criticism, and DOES read as a pro-malkin page. The removal of blog citation is in keeping with wiki policy. ThuranX 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Retiono Virginian. Either that, or the user has snapped. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Looks like he's hunting for 'resigned' and inactive wikipedians to hack now? ThuranX 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that was. I think I've cleaned everything up though. Metros232 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's blocked now anyway. Secretlondon 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that this user snapped based on his edit summaries in his contributions. I can't be too sure however, can anybody provide checkuser to see if this account is really hijacked? It could be the same person who hijacked all 5 admin accounts.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Retiono Virginian resigned, he created a new account, Eaomatrix (talk · contribs) (see this edit for confirmation of that). The last edit from that account was at 18:08 UTC today. The account hijacking of his old account was 18:14 UTC today. Might a checkuser be in need here? Metros232 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm yes. I also have my suspected of who hacked the old unused account. As the account, I asked for everything to be shut down to prevent hacking and it was blatantly rejected. It may be User:Mr oompapa who is responsible for this, as basically I was a target for him as Retiono Virginian, and partially a way to escape him for one was to have this new account. I am not responsible for this mayhem. Perform a checkuser. Eaomatrix 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eaomatrix, I use to edit as User:Tellyaddict (if you do not believe me then unblock Tellyaddict and I'll make an edit to prove it), I was accused of being a sockpuppet when editing as Tellyaddict (shown here) by Grandelkhan, I was not a sockpuppet, yes I edit as The Sunshine Man but dont worry about WP:SOCK, please perform a checkuser to show the truth, and take the worry out of Grandelkhan's head of thinking Retiono Virginian was a sockpuppet of me or vice versus. The Sunshine Man 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaomatrix, I got a question. How can Mr oompapa hijacked your account? Did you use a strong password?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Retiono Virginian account did Not have a strong password, which makes it quite vunrable. However I believe it to be Oompapa because he was always leaving abusive messages for me (many were oversighted as they contained personal information) and he may have clicked on that the account had resigned and comprised it. I'm not sure though, it could be anyone. Eaomatrix 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. If you didn't intend to use the account again, and in fact wanted it closed, why didn't you set a random password? The failure to take even minimal precautions here is extremely worrying. Why knowingly run an account on a weak password? Why, having done so, leave it exposed? --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I retired as User:Tellyaddict I had my account indef blocked at my request and my user talk page fully protected to prevent using {{unblock}} as I never wanted to edit under that account again.The Sunshine Man 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries scream Oompapa to me. However, a Checkuser should set everyone's minds at rest. – Riana_ऋ 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell Demcdevit to do checkuser on your original account to see if it is that abusive sockpuppeter, a person who hijacked 5 admin accounts, or some other person.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite guys, can someone throw out a link to his failed RfA from last month? Reg is just P'd off his RfA snow balled after his comments about Kelly Martin, - check his contribs just before he left, he either went crazy or gave someone his password. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HERE YOU GO. Anchoress 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I highly doubt that he went crazy in his account. He created an account named Eaomatrix a week ago or two before the incident today, so it is likely that his account has been hacked.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he was annoyed. Really, who would want to hack his account? Anyone wanting to cause trouble would just create their own account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would quite like to see a checkuser - who knows, if the edit summaries are Oompapa like, Retiono may well have been vandalising on the sly with Oompapa accounts, and when he ran amock on his old account, he mistakenly used the Oompapa style, perhaps in anger. Martinp23 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A user hijacked 5 admin accounts?! Please state who they are, because I must have missed that disscussion, and is that user the same user that you accuse of hijacking this account? Also, is it possible that this user (the hijacker) could have an automated password cracker? I have noticed that sometimes a message is displayed to prevent automated password cracking, but this is very rare. Is it possible to block all of the ips of the abusive user from clicking "Sign in/create account", and prevent him/her from logging in under any username? Should a feature like that be created, to prevent banned users from doing so? Also, for banned users with changeable ips, is it possible to install a mediawiki feature to track a banned user's new ips, and automatically block them both from signing in and from creating an account? Also, should there be a thing that automatically checks the computer of a user (in the form of a cookie, etc, that is not malware) for any password cracking devices, and automatically ban them from entering the account signin/creation zone? Is such a feature possible? Or, do "we" just not have that kind of technology? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff you're suggesting is not really possible. However, mediawiki should probably track overall statistics of successful vs. unsuccessful logins and alert the devs to sudden changes, if it's not already doing so. 75.62.6.237 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to drop my two cents in; while clearly something was up with the On Wheels stuff, my accusations of sockpuppetry concerning the time period prior to that were unfounded; I had no evidence apart from a photographer's barnstar given to someone who habitually claimed that copyrighted images were his and released under a CC license. I had suspicions, but no actual evidence. grendel|khan 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Eaomatrix's past is relevant here, and should provide some background to my breakdown of good faith in an earlier comment. As has been admitted to me on IRC (a couple of days ago), Eaomatrix used to be User:Molag Bal, and all associated socks as confirmed by checkuser and the user himself. The user has had three or four "second chances" given to him by various admins. and each time has violated their trust by keeping one account clean, which vandalising on others. It is my concern that Eaomatrix is using Oompapa as his latest vandalism power craze, and as his controbs show, has seems to have had an uncanny knack of knowing which accounts belong to Oompapa, as he tagged a run of about 10 of them. Of course, I am speculating about the user's current activities, but feel that the information about his past should be made public, if only so that users here can determine that he has started afresh and he can go forward with clean conscious, knowing that the community trust him for who his was and is, not just the fraction of his history they know about. That said, I hope that this info gives food for thought, and may change the direction of this "investigation" (IRC logs proving my assertions are available on request, User:Nishkid64 can also verify the user's past, but has not himself seen the evidence of his latest incarnation). Martinp23 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another Michaelesque situation...and that worked out well. — MichaelLinnear 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be irrelevant, but User:Retiono Virginia was created and blocked last week as a VOA. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly not a hijacking, and the same as Eaomatrix (talk · contribs). Both users edit from the same IPs, all of the vandalism came from the same IPs they had used before, not a new one as with a hijacking, and Eaomatrix had used the same IP minutes before the vandalism. It seems to me that he just used the move summaries to obscure to try to take advantage of the recent troubles. Dmcdevit·t 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool, and quite disruptive. Perhaps help Eaomatrix with their wikibreak [65] with a block for disrupting Wikipedia? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far out, that's disappointing. So is Retiono/Eaomatrix the same person as Oompapa? – Riana_ऋ 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the checkuser results show that the vandalism on the Retonio account was on the same IP as Eaomatrix. Nothing to do with Oompapa yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE. I'M GONE, and not returning. You better be happy now. Becuase I AM NOT this Oompapa troll or Molag Bal. Martinp23 is just some arrogant kid. Eaomatrix 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is ridiculous. What, we just block people whenever they feel like it? – Riana_ऋ 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Eaomatrix for a month. Vandalism is not acceptable, and then trolling when you get caught isn't either. Moreschi ^Talk 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit weird to think that Eaomatrix/Retiono Virginian is Mr oompapa because Retiono Virginian's account did get affected by continuous vandalism from Mr oompapa and was 1 of the reason he left and created a new account and how the hacker managed to find his password might have been something to think about but I don't think it's the same person..It seems dubious though but it definitely ain't the same person..A checkuser needs to be done on Mr oompapa to clear this all and maybe the Admin involved with all this Chrislk02 needs to be brought in to solve this once and for all..----Cometstyles 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - but in the past (you'll have to take my word for this until I have the time to trawl through the relevant categories), Molag Bal/Eaomatrix/Retiono has used accounts later proved to be him by checkuser to attack his other accounts. I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but if you drop me an email or something, then I can send you the relevant IRC logs, should you wish. Martinp23 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite strange

This thread on ANI has been vandalised a few times in the past half hour, mainly by one IP and one user. The IP vandalism is like this, [66] and was followed by this post to Dmcdevit's talk, attempting to avoid an IP check as I requested there. The user who vandalised ANI was User:Malcourno, who has blamed the vandalism on problems using Twinkle (despite the fact that the vandalism is identical to some of that done by the IPs). Malcourno is a name that rings a bell with me, and doing a search on my gmail account, I find out that the owner of Molag bal has emailed me from an account with "Malcourno .de-macht" in the from line. So, it would appear the Malcourno is Eaomatrix (emails will be forwarded on request). Now we come to the concerning bit - this edit under the same thread on Dmcdevit's talk page, deleting my request for a checkuser and replacing it with a reference to Yamla (AFAIK, Oompapa tormented Yamla, so is this a link?). It seems to be too much of a coincidence, and does heighten my suspicions about Oompapa/Eaomatrix. I haven't geolocated the IPs, but I would suspect them to be dynamic and/or proxies. Thanks, Martinp23 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I blocked both IPs and Malcourno, all of whom were obviously trolling. Checking WHOIS, the IPs originated in the UK, apparently. I'm not techie enough to tell whether they're open proxies or not. Moreschi ^Talk 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user behind Malcourno, Eaomatrix and the rest uses BT internet, which can geolocate anywhere in the country, and is dynamic to the extent that if one unplugs the router, and reconnects, one gets a new IP. Martinp23 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After eight days on AfD, Drini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed this as delete. (It had previously been closed as delete by Daniel Bryant - but he chose to reverse himself and extend it for a bit). Drini's act was likely to be controversial - but he was previously uninvolved - and, frankly, any close was likely to be contested. Cool heads were needed.

However, Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who as a 'keep' voter was very much involved, took it upon himself to reverse the closer and undo the deletion (a wheel war)- and he did so, as far as I can tell, without DRV or any prior discussion. Two administrators have now challenged him on this [67] - he admits to wheel warring, but is refusing to reverse himself or engage in further discussion - which is 'wasting his time'[68]. I don't think this yet merits arbitration. But perhaps others could review and discuss.--Doc^g 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, wheel warring is a great way to do an RfA in reverse. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we'll now have to write up a page about Wheel-war reform and have oodles of discussion on it...--Srikeit 19:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much discussion do we need to say "Don't do it"? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, we've been saying it for ages and yet here we are... again --Srikeit 19:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad precedent. Daniel should have sent the user to deletion review, not reopened it. Drini action can be considered "necessary": the article must have been deleted in order to request the deletion review. Matt's behavior is unacceptable, though, as an interested side he should have not reopened the discussion, even if another admin had done so. We have a process for deletion review, and cannot just let administrators play the "he did it first" mantra. -- ReyBrujo 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness here, Drini's close was pretty much ignoring the debate: he wasn't evaluating arguments, he just made one of his own and acted on it. I think we could stand for an independent decision. In my view, the debate hasn't reached a clear conclusion, maybe it will with a little more time. Mangojuice^talk 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that's a view for DRV discussion - not for unilateral reversal.--Doc^g 19:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best approach is to agree here to restore an outcome of "delete" and send it to immediately to DRV. We have that forum for a reason, and wheel warring is obviously bad. --kingboyk 19:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

Agree entirely. Should be closed as delete, and sent to DRV -- Samir 19:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. DRV would be best for sorting issues of admin behavior. Letting the AfD reach an independent conclusion would be, by far, better for deciding on the status of this article. The DRV would be a complete mess, we should all know that. Mangojuice^talk 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't letting it run be endorsing wheel warring? Not that I disagree that the AFD could use more input, mind you. --kingboyk 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wheel warring meant reverting another admin action more than once. I only see one undelete described here. Where's the wheel war? 75.62.6.237 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, arbcom defined wheel warring as reverting an admin action without discussion.--Doc^g 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} —dgies^t_c 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - Sorry, guys, this article is not notable enough to be worth fighting over. There are cases where admins interfere in ways they probably should not do, but I don't believe this is one of them. Any actions taken here have been done in haste because there is too much other work to do. Admins should be given a free pass in this case. The real solution would be to create more admins, you're welcome to nominate me if you think I'm talking sense. PalestineRemembered 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're not. Whatever people think of the article - wheel warring is bad. If you think it is stuff for a 'free pass' then I oppose you being an admin.--Doc^g 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get Talk:Qian_Zhijun undeleted pending the afd outcome? Nardman1 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not if involves undoing another admin's decision :) Let's draw to a conclusion here (quickly please folks!) and then the next step will probably have to be DRV. If it's kept pending DRV the talk page can be undeleted then. --kingboyk 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I undeleted it, should be uncontroversial: it was deleted by Bryant who had reversed his own closure. Mangojuice^talk 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: I normally avoid undoing my closures, but the information and arguments presented were substantial to the point where my close was (by my own admission) incorrect. Hence, I undeleted the article, reopened and relisted the AfD, and made a suggestion that it run the full five days further.

I appreciate why Drini wanted to close it early, though, and acknowledge that he has free rein to do whatever he likes even if I suggest anything. However, what Matt did was totally unacceptable. I have reverted the AfD to Drini's close verion, protected it, and redeleted the article per Drini's close. The speedy, out-of-process undeletion had no merit.

And for those of you who argue I was wheel warring as I deleted it initially, I hope you can apply common sense and make the distinction between an action (which I in turn reversed) and the reaction to the undeletion. Daniel Bryant 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commend Daniel's actions in this matter. And I feel that he correctly recognises that Drini's deletion was entirely valid based on the AfD discussion. His request in relisting was advisory and I'm sure was taken into account. When I first became aware that Matt Crypto had reversed Drini's close, I thought it was out of line. We should not reverse actions by other admins carried out in good faith. But I hadn't realised that Matt had been a participant in the AfD discussion. In light of this, it makes his decision to undelete the article all the more problematic. Wheel warring is bad. Wheel warring when you are involved in the dispute is utterly unacceptable. Cool heads are what are needed in discussions such as this one, not reckless acts clearly motivated by not getting one's own way... WjBscribe 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Matt Crypto's actions were wrong. I didn't like them before, and i had failed to note then that he had previously commented and !voted in the discussion, which only made them worse. I am sorry that I didn't revert them instantly and take the matter right to WP:DRV, as I considered doing (I didn't lest that seem to be wheel-warring and escalate further). That said, i feel that Drini's close is in no way supported by the state of the discussion when he closed it, unless he simply disregarded all the arguments on one side of the issue. Doc glasgow speaks of this AfD as being listed for 8 days, but for a significant part of that time, it was closed by Daniel Bryant. Daniel Bryant having relisted it because of "significant new information" as he put it when relisting, an early close is IMO not warrented when there were clearly arguments being made for both keep and delate -- this was not a "snowball" situation. Then when i requested, on Drini's talk page, that he revert his clsoe, he twice refused, citing WP:IAR as a justification. In an obviusly contentious matter such as this, such use of IAR is, I think, unwise at best. I have taken the matter to deletion review, becaue I was surely not going to wheel war furhter (in fact I did so before I was aware of this thread). It is said above that "comments made after a valid close" should have been reverted, but I and four other editors commetned in good faith on an AfD then listed as open. It is not as if I or any of the other four asked for the revert. Reversion of comments in good faith is IMO undesireable. DES ^(talk) 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was already warned and blocked once about this. [69] [70], [He keeps putting the Israeli flag next to the name "Palesting" and the Palestinian flag next to the name "Israel". His user page shows an obvious antisemitic bias where he accuses Wikipedias of whing "pro Jewish bias". i thought this was taken care of but I guess not because he's back trying to inflame people. He needs to be blocked for a longer period or time or someone needs to set him straight and i think its safe to quit assuming good faith at this point. he also has a history of disruption using his Rastishka (talk · contribs) account and his IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs).

Here is what hes doing now, soapboxing, causing a disruption with his soapboxing garbage. [71]. Please make him stop! The Parsnip! 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked him, for persistent POV pushing, trolling, and soapboxing despite repeated warnings and two previous blocks for doing so. Krimpet (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the offensive material itself, which is still on the user's page? MSJapan 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the indef block; he was given ample warning the last time. (I was the admin who blocked him.) If he wants to troll, he can do it on some other site. Per MSJapan's comment, I will replace his userpage with the appropriate template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the indefblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also support block. Clearly not a useful contributor by any means. Sandstein 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefblock as well, per obvious evidence above. Smee 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account initially created to participate in discussion of the article on the AACS encryption number on DRV. It may or may not be a sock or alternate account of an established editor, but if it is, I see no evidence of any violation of the sockpuppet policy. This editor's strong position, expressed in more strident terms than necessary, was in favor of keeping the article and publishing "the number" on Wikipedia. After a couple of posts to the DRV, DragonflySixtyseven blocked this account with the explanation that it was "a single-purpose account that had served its single purpose."

Discussion on ANI (now archived here) drew mixed reviews for the original block, and a couple of days later, DragonflySixtyseven unblocked, with the summary "Fine. Let's see if you behave."

After the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne made several posts to the ANI thread over a period of a few hours, claiming that the original block was unjustified and that the blocking policy had allegedly been violated. AmendmentNumberOne's only other post was a thank-you on the talkpage of an editor who had supported him. At this point Ryulong reblocked AmendmentNumberOne, with the rationale "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." AmendmentNumberOne did not initially post an unblock request, although another user posted on his talk that the matter was worthy of an arbitration case. Initial reaction to the reblock (see same ANI thread above) was primarily favorable, although no ultimate conclusion was reached because the user did not posted an unblock request.

As the users continued to fume about the block, I suggested that a review could be requested, and posted to Ryulong's talk that I had reservations about the reblock. My comments to Ryulong read:

Hi. I know you feel strongly that the block was appropriate, but I have some qualms about your reblock the other day of User:AmendmentNumberOne. The account was obviously created as an SPA and may well be a sock/alternate account, and I have previously opined on ANI that its approach to a difficult issue was unnecessarily confrontational and strident. Nonetheless, neither a harsh tone on talk pages nor an editor's protesting against his previous block on ANI is, of itself, a blockable offense. I don't see any other user misconduct (in fact, as you noted, there hasn't been any other user conduct at all yet, one way or the other). In your block summary—"User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia"—the first two sentences do not constitute a strong basis for a block, and the third is a conclusion based on what I consider insufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, I would have preferred, at a minimum, to allow more time to see whether problems developed before there was any consideration of reblocking. I'm sorry to be critical, and I'd welcome any additional thoughts you may have on this.

Unfortunately, Ryulong does not seem to have been online today, although a post he made yesterday to User talk:AmendmentNumberOne probably summarizes his position sufficiently. AmendmentNumberOne has now posted a formal unblock template request. My view is to unblock, but rather than act unilaterally and in disregard of the prior discussion, I am bringing the situation here. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock. Ryulong blocked the user for the exact same reason Dragonfly had originally provided. The block seems unjust, given that the user was only given two days to make encyclopedic contributions and it's understandable that they would still be riled up about being "unfairly" blocked. I would recommend unblocking this user, and keeping a close eye on the user for the time being. Also, as blocking policy states, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I don't see how this block is anything but punitive against the user. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, he could be considered guilty of soapboxing. As to whether that';s a bannable offense, I can't say. HalfShadow 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why unblock? This is self-evidently a sockpuppet of an experienced user. They've made their WP:POINT, time to move on. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the presumption is that accounts are left unblocked unless there is a reason to block them, not the other way around? Newyorkbrad 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and in this case the editor registered a sockpuppet account with a provocative name just in order to troll. There's three reasons in one. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep blocked soapboxing from the very moment of enrolling that username, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned. Could have been blocked for advocacy per WP:USERNAME at very first edit. Also probable sock per JzG's analysis in the earlier thread (and just now, edit conflict). 75.62.6.237 21:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this all comes down to whether AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs) is a legitimate, non-disruptive sock puppet, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, or not. I haven't followed this whole brouhaha very closely, but the number of bytes spent discussing his behavior are not in his favor. Picaroon (Talk) 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as I've had limitted internet access over the past couple of days (I am currently sitting in PBIA while awaiting my flight back to New York). In my eyes, AmendmentNumberOne had a full two days to make some sort of a mark on the encyclopedia, which (as I stated somewhere in one of my replies on ANI or to JNighthawk) that he did not make an attempt to edit any article, not even Puppy. The account itself was never one that was to make any sort of edits on the encyclopedia, and instead make his feelings known about how he feels about censorship (his name being a direct reference to such) and afterwards complain about how he was unjustly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven. In the past thread concerning the individual which has since been archived, my block was supported by anyone in the thread save for one individual, and it was obvious to anyone else that the account AmendmentNumberOne was not here to do anything but whinge and talk about censorship of the HD DVD encryption key. I stand by my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block They are clearly a sock of an experienced user. That, as well as being a SPA are not prohibited, but people are given accounts so that they can contribute to articles, images, templates, etc, not solely to try influence Wikipedia policy on talk pages and DRV. If this is a sock of an experienced user, I don't see why they need an alternate account solely to push POV while hiding their main identity. In the unlikely event this is a new user, then can be unblocked if and when they want to make a contribution to the project, rather than opine on the DMCA. —dgies^t_c 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. Ryulong's judgement was sound. WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows use of separate accounts for "substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia," but in this case it's clear all AmendmentNumberOne was doing was promoting his point of view without actually contributing to our encyclopedia. Krimpet (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd just like to comment about this - I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss here. The way I see it, is that no clear policy-based reason has been extended for blocking this user - in fact, the reason extended is that the user "doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia". Frankly, I don't understand this - the encyclopedia is more than just the mainspace - it extends to all of the bureaucratic material which backs up that mainspace; and this includes deletion debates and reviews. Let's say there existed a user who solely edited to comment on deletion debate - I could not, in good faith, say that user was "not contributing" to the encyclopedia. The same is true if they only commented on deletion reviews. Like it or not, but these are essential parts of the encyclopedia, and commenting on them in an informed and reasonable fashion can be as important as writing an article. There is nothing wrong with being an informed editor, who comments on issues they feel passionately about, and bases their arguments on policy - even if they choose only to contribute outside the project mainspace.

It doesn't jive with my understanding of how this encyclopedia is supposed to function by blocking such a user, and it definitely doesn't jive to then characterize their attempts to be unblocked as "whining". There has been no evidence advanced that he's a sockpuppet, either. Let the user contribute - and if he actually breaks policy, then take action; not before. --Haemo 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Haemo said, I don't see where these sockpuppet allegations are coming from. The user's edits may be suspicious, but who says the user is not a legitimate editor who created his account to address an issue he was watching on Wikipedia? I think we should be blocking people based on facts, not mere assumptions. I know assumptions are used when blocking suspected sockpuppets, but when we don't know who this person is (assuming it's a sock), then we shouldn't go around blocking people. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock, as per Nishkid64. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if it is a sock, unless the puppet was supporting his/her main account in the discussion, or using it to !vote twice in the DRV, it's not an abusive sock. Unless we have evidence of that, there's no reason to leave the account blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps ANO can show what he would like to contribute to Wikipedia aside from his personal beliefs in free speech and whatever that number is? Phony Saint 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean it like that... I support unblocking him. But it would probably be more reassuring to the others to show that he does intend to contribute more than pursuing justice against admins who jumped the gun in some sort of WikiCourt case. Phony Saint 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence that this accoutn is a scok is IMO far from compellign, but grantign that, I see no evidence at all of thsi being an abusive sock, and none of disruption. The user was arguing a PoV, perhaps more strongly and stridently than was wise or polite, but that is not grounds for blocking, and neither is complaining about a block on the proper forum. There is no time limit within which uers must edit an articele or be blocked, nor are SPA's forbidden. And if we blocked every use who argued for a PoV, we would ahve far fewwer editors on controversial topics. No policy-based reason has been advanced for this block. Support unblock. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This reflects a problem we have with contentious discussions - namely, that admins are willing to block any SPA who joins in. He may or may not be a sockpuppet, but WP:SOCK certainly allows a seperate account for controversial that people do not want associated with their main account. Support unblock, if it isn't obvious. -Amarkov moo! 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock. Soapboxing, while probably not a good thing, is not against Wikipedia policy, even if done by a sock. As long as its not disruptive and doesn't violate other policies such as civility, there is no justification in blocking the sock. There is no rule saying that Wikipedians cannot participate in policy discussions with socks, as long as they are not abusive. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to reiterate, contributing to the encyclopedia is generally considered to be the main space, while the project pages, such as this one, are part of Wikipedia as a whole, it was obvious that A#1 is a single-purpose account created to soapbox and argue. If the user had not had been blocked by DragonflySixtyseven initially, the user would have no reason to contribute to any page. He was originally here solely at the DRV on the article that had the number as the title. Since then, the user behind the account (whoever it may be) solely whinged about the block. This unblock was in place for two days and only after I had blocked the user did the discussion about the supposed abuse get archived. The user was never here to do anything but soapbox and complain about censorship and then adminabuse. I have a feeling that once the account is unblocked, that it will initiate another massive discussion about how I abused my admin tools and not contribute anywhere else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a whole lot of assumptions on your part, I think, based on very little evidence. First of all, you blocked him for "not being here to contribute" - as has been discussed, that's not a policy-based reason for blocking. Furthermore, as I discussed above, it's not prima facie that a user who doesn't "contribute", by your definition, can't still play a valuable role in the encyclopedia. Past that, your objection is that the user is "whining" and committing "admin abuse" over being repeatedly blocked for this reason. Frankly, that's not compelling, given that a large number of people also disagree with the block. It's totally inappropriate to claim a user trying to be unblocked over a block which is widely debatable is "whining" or "abusing the admins", and it marginalizes the user essentially because he disagrees with you. Am I "whining" about this block? Are my comments "admin abuse"? If so, then there's something wrong with your definitions here - and if not, then neither are his.

Blocks should be based on policy, and not on personal beliefs about what does, and does not, constitute satisfactorily "constructive" contributions, especially when there is no evidence of disruption. Being a single purpose account is not blockable. Only contributing to deletion reviews is not blockable. Asking to be unblocked when blocked without any policy justification is not blockable. I don't see any reason why this user was blocked, and the justification given is not satisfying in the slightest. We have policies to govern blocking precisely to protect the encyclopedia from abuse - admins should try to abide by them, unless there is a clear reason to act on the principle rather than the literal text. --Haemo 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Adminabuse" is generally abuse of administrative actions, not abusing administrators.

That aside, the user was only here to stir up already controversial topics and was blocked for being an account who directly made his way over to DRV. When he was blocked, he directly contacted the admin who blocked and there was other discussion that led to DragonflySixtyseven's unblock and apology. From what I saw, the apology was rejected and he spent the 48 hours that he was unblocked on this message board complaining about how he felt that he was unjustly blocked. Although I generally only apply blocks for non-contributive accounts on those that solely built up their user pages or user talk pages. There is nothing written in WP:BLOCK that states that single-purpose accounts are to be blocked. There's nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia that excessive complaining will lead to a block. However, when all a user does is complain, then that is on the thin line between discussion and trolling. While AmendmentNumberOne's comments were civil, they were all complaints in one way or another even after an apology by the original blocking administrator. I saw no constructive edits from AmendmentNumberOne. He was, in any definition, a troll. While I do know about assuming good faith, when good faith is not assumed by the other, and after 2 days, then good faith is lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of [a] deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something here, but what does this project (i.e. the creation of an encyclopedia) gain if we unblock this user? It doesn't seem to me that this account is likely to contribute content nor has expressed any desire to do so. What is the purpose of this sock? Why can the original account not be used to make the posts this account makes? Without answers to these questions, I'm not really sure unblocking is a good idea. WjBscribe 07:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We gain an articulate, knowledgeable editor to comment on issues? As policy says, there's nothing wrong with being a single purpose account. Frankly, I don't believe it should work like this regardless of what we gain - users should not have to "prove" their worth before being unblocked, if the block was not valid in the first place. That's backwards. --Haemo 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really pissing me off. There is no policy backing up all 3 of his blocks (original, the unblock review, and the current one). None. Zero policy behind it. Follow the guidelines that are in place. They're there for a reason. Haemo has deftly argued the points of this case and I don't understand how anyone can agree with this block. Presumption of innocence? Accounts are not created on a probationary basis. A user remains unblocked unless there is a reason to be blocked. Honestly, have the admins that are agreeing with this block even read Wikipedia policy? This user shouldn't be unblocked because he pledges to contribute, but because he was blocked unjustly in the first place! - JNighthawk 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not really had much chance to edit Wikipedia the last few days, due to other circumstances, so this is really my first chance to comment about the issue.

This user may not be a sockpuppet: he could have heard about Wikipedia from someone else who has an account, and that may be why he knows a bit about Wikipedia. We should WP:AGF unless there is evidence that proves he is a sockpuppet. Just because a new user may know about Wikipedia policy, templates, etc. does not imply they are a sockpuppet - they could be friends of another editor, etc. (although wouldn't that fall under meatpuppetry??) Either way, we should let him edit again - and the single-purpose account policy says there's nothing wrong with it. I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion on this:

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block.

If he just wants to edit articles relating to freedom of speech etc. then that is probably permissible per the policy on SPA's.

Apologies if this seems overly long, I hope I've helped you with this one - it's a situation that is a bit of a hot potato at the moment. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This was a good block. The username has absolutely no edits in article space and he's done nothing but whine endlessly about censorship. Please don't waste any more time on this idiot. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Tony on this one. I don't see any valid argument for unblocking this guy. He's not here to write the encyclopedia, he's here looking for a discussion forum to advocate his views on "freedom of speech". This is what Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur also, minus the impolite expressions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked. If this account belongs to an established editor, I see no legitimate reason why they should not express their views on this subject under their own user name. Sandstein 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Totally silly block, no policies have been violated. Sandstein if you think "Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked" then you should change Wikipedia:Single purpose account to say that. But there is worse, the accusation of whinning is much more important here, one of the reasons for the continued block is the user complaining about the block. That is admin abuse, if the user had been uncivil about it then he should be blocked but to ban the user for going through DR proceedures is an abuse of power. Hypnosadist 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        Disagree with the block by all means, but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously.

        One of the excuses for unblocking this disruptive non-article-editor is that he may be the Wikipedia:single purpose account of an article editor. If that is the case then his views can be expressed without a separate account. The account is not helping Wikipedia in any way and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        Any diffs of this editor being disruptive then tony? Hypnosadist 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        Does calling someone an idiot not violate wp:civ? Hypnosadist 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Its not just this case, many posts on this page have admins threatening users with blocks for trolling or whinning if they complain, this case is just one. This clearly has to stop as it is being used as a way to suppress complaints about how admins do their job and what policies they block under. Note you still fail to offer a policy that this user has violated, if the rules for blocks is "because admin X says so" then say that, if the rules are for violating policy then state which policy this editor has violated to justify this block. All i see are assumptions of BAD faith on behalf of the blocking admins. As to "but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously." thats the problem, first i did not yell admin abuse and second did you stop for a second to consider how this blocking without policies looks to non-admins or outsiders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I hope I'm missing something but I don't see the disruption. It seems to me that this user would like to contribute to the encyclopedia (by adding those magic numbers) but feels denied that oppertunity due to current consensus. Instead he has been trying to persuade a change in consensus and was blocked for expressing an opinion that most of us disagree with. What am I missing? --Selket ^Talk 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, exactly. There has been no evidence of disruption on the part of this user. He was initially banned for being a single purpose account - which is contrary to policy - with additional justification that he was being disruptive and adding the so-called "magic number" to a bunch of pages. This appears to be patently untrue, and there has been no evidence given to support this. When he pointed this out, in requesting to be unblocked, he was told that "he was obviously acting in bad faith", again, without any evidence to back this assertion up. After requesting some actual justification, he was accused of "trying to get Wikipedia sued" and of "acting in bad faith", again, without any justification. After sometime, he was unblocked, with the comment "Meh, I'm being too nice" - and no acknowledgment of any mistake, or explanation for the actions of two separate admins. He then posted about this on this page, lodging an informal complaint, and was blocked for "not contributing to the encyclopedia" - again, another reason for blocking not based in policy.
        • There has been no justification for any of the blocks given - there has, however, been a whole lot of bad faith, outright mistruths, and accusations leveled at this editor with absolutely no support. Most jarringly, in my mind, is the fact that people seem to believe that agitating to be unblocked, after being blocked without justification, and using fallacious evidence, is "whining", and that attempting to get some degree of accountability from admins involved is "whining", and is deserving of a block. That is totally unacceptable in my mind. The onus is not on editors to prove that they meet some arbitrary, undocumented, and undefined level of "contribution" in the minds of any given admin in order to remain unblocked. --Haemo 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, my initial reaction upon reviewing this block was that it was not sufficiently supported by the blocking policy or by evidence. Rather than act unilaterally, I posted about this unblock request here. A wide range of views have been expressed, by both admins and non-admins, but unfortunately, no consensus appears to have been reached one way or the other. As in any on-wiki discussion the quality of the arguments matters more than the numbers; but numerically, for what it is worth, there was a slight preponderance of users opining against the block.

This leaves me to exercise my discretion as the reviewing administrator, and my conclusion remains that for the reasons discussed above, the reblock is without sufficient foundation to stand. Accordingly, I have granted the unblock request and unblocked this account, with the hope that this editor will proceed to make valuable contributions. I will, of course, monitor the account. My thanks to everyone who provided input in this thread. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a serious question for here, but I wonder, and someone here will know - who first coined the phrase ""Wikipedia is not therapy" - I think I am going to need to quote it, and would hate to give a wrong attribution - was it Kelly? Giano 22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any help? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy--Doc^g 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First edit on page: 13:29, 25 March 2006 Fred Bauder (Talk | contribs) (A start) It was apparently Fred Bauder. Funpika 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where I first remember seeing it: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/archive4#Wikipedia_is_not_therapy. Jpgordon, 3 May 2005. I'm not sure if it came up before that. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly earlier citation (also from jpgordon) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive17#Arbitration_notice - User:Irate:

"Wikipedia is not therapy, nor can it provide therapy. If Irate hadn't been recognized as a useful contributor, he would have been unceremoniously and arbitrarily booted for being an abusive vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)" -- MarcoTolo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I used to think it was a very mean thing to say, these days it just seems to be useful. Giano 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Gabeyg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefblocked by Nlu for abuse of multiple accounts. From what I can tell they've used 63.135.11.194 (talk · contribs), BBOPOPOS (talk · contribs), Gabeyc (talk · contribs) (note 'c') and OverQQ (talk · contribs). The master account, Gabeyg is requesting unblock. While it's annoying they seems to be socking, the only thing violating WP:SOCK is disruption by making it hard to track a single user's edits. They're not AFD stacking or 3RRing. My inclination is to indefblock all the secondary accounts for disruption and give the master a 24 hours block for sock abuse. Nlu has been informed. Looking for a second opinion. —dgies^t_c 01:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nlu appears to concur, I have implemented the above. —dgies^t_c 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

SummerThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was ranting on the talk page of his latest sock, Plain lying (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), about the Chinese Wikipedia and OCD. Took the liberty of blanking it--but can one of you guys kindly protect it and shut off his mic?Blueboy96 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's at it again, now he's implying I have OCD. Whack this idiot, please?Blueboy96 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does he use numerous sockpuppets in Chinese Wiki, non even this English Wikipedia? I think that he might have more sockpuppets. Daniel 5127 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, he was indef'd on the Chinese Wikipedia--his whole career here has been ranting about what happened there. Dunno if he has more socks on Chinese Wiki ... but I've seen at least three today. Still, someone here needs to pull the plug on his mic on User talk:Plain lying.Blueboy96 02:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How time flies--just as I wrote this, Physicq nailed him. Thanks! Blueboy96 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to use an IP block on this guy? Or does he use open proxies? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we managed to stop him for all of 2 days when we blocked his entire range, and it caused all sorts of problems for innocent users. So that's not a preferred option. Better would be to semi-protect his targeted talk pages if necessary. --tjstrf talk 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing 0CD nutty editors is the same guy. I just had to blank his talk page too. I protected it as well. IrishGuy ^talk 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He uses a different IP each time. I don't know if he's wardriving for insecure WiFi connections, going from coffee-house hotspot to coffee-house hotspot, or if he just has a dynamic IP. He has been causing problems for quite a while (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder) and will occasionally pick a "favorite" to harrass. I have been "it" as of late. This is nowhere near resolved; he will be back until someone definitively figures out his ISP and contacts to shut him off. He made almost a dozen separate vandalizing rampages across a host of articles yesterday and kept popping up with a new sockpuppet as quickly as administrators could zap them. --Dynaflow babble 03:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get used to it. Random IP-users are a frigging pain... HalfShadow 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been canvassing / spamming many talk pages for an article which has since been deleted. I've warned the user with {{uw-canvass}}, so could someone take over the situation if she continues canvassing? ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has apologized for canvassing, so I hereby remove this post. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 03:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User: Nazrac indefinitely blocked for disruption / sectarian trolling - Alison ☺ 16:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For background, please see RfC/Grazon, RfC/Devilmaycares, AN/I#Block evasion by Grazon, or AN/I#More block evasion by Grazon.

Grazon, who has been indefinitely blocked, has again crept back onto Wikipedia qua

• 132.241.245.132
• 132.241.245.245
• 132.241.246.111

His edits have generally been less problematic during this latest spell, but they have still been somewhat tenditious, and some of the summaries are the sort that would get a regular editor cautioned:

• “he jerked off a guy and he blew a guy”
• “rvv” inappropriately
• “dream on Chompbots”
• “Reverted Vandalism by BrianSmithson” inappropriately
• “For shits sake Donald was in 7 war time film and was in uniform in every one of them! WTF is wrong with you?”

Additionally, there are again many edits (some certainly not minor) for which he is not providing a summary. —75.5.175.229 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Can someone please do something about this user because basically, the editor seems to be using Wikipedia as a webhost. I left a suggestive message on his talk page[80], which he ignored. His userpage seems, at a quick glance, to be full of religious POVs and poetry. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page deleted reduced to a stub, user - who has no edits other than to his user page - blocked until he indicates he wants to work on the encyclopedia. Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with this. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

0CDisorder you and wikipidea addiction (talk · contribs) - He's back, again, after being banned, I think, three times last night. Can someone banhammer? Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 08:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Viridae^Talk 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just User:SummerThunder up to his regular nonsense. Luna took care of it. — MichaelLinnear 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Bravehartbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- After being warned in the past, recent postings of copyrighted material. At articles: Alan W Black, James A. Beckford, and Per-Arne Berglie. Smee 09:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked indef, at least until he agrees not to copyvio any more. Sandstein 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Smee 09:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved

This article is currently in an older revision containing many spam links in violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT a web directory.

This is because an anonymous user (User talk:71.51.113.146 and User talk:65.186.91.97 has been repeatedly reverting since 9th April.

Myself and others have worked on a newer revision [81] without the spam links. But I can't revert again without violating 3RR (although this anonymous user has).

Over the past month I have repeatedly asked this user to read WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:V/WP:ATT on both his talk pages and the edit history. He hasn't acknowledged this and continues to revert on the basis of "I'm not adding these links, they were there before".

WP:AIV have directed me here as it doesn't seem to be simple vandalism. Marasmusine 10:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT violated 3RR; I have not made more than 3 edits in the last 24 hours. 65.186.91.97 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you hadn't; that was my mistake, sorry (thought 3RR was '3 or more', not 'more than 3') Marasmusine 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected. Please ask at WP:RFPP if this happens again. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

IP 12.149.132.3 (and several other IPs that I think are the same user) is determined to remove a paragraph from this biography. He comes and removes it at least once a day, sometimes twice. He refuses to use the talk page, communicating only through rather cryptic edit summaries. He ignores all warnings and pleas for discussion. He provides sources that do not say what he thinks they say. I hesitate to bring it to the simple vandalism board, because... well, he thinks he's having a content dispute. I'm requesting a 48-hour block, to give him time to consider the advantages of discussion and consensus. Does someone agree? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:COI vandalism. No WP:BLP issues evident, contested content fully sourced. Blocked 31 h. Sandstein 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has repeatedly added a statement about global warming to the article Arctic, taken from a single dubious news story. I have reverted him 8 times now over the past 3 days, such as this [82].

(Note: Looking at the edit history, you will see that I also reverted another editor. This was because he mistakenly thought my removal was vandalism; once I explained he stopped.)

I have explained that this addition is out of context, and there are more appropriate articles that already discuss this. He has not responded to these criticisms. Instead, he has repeatedly made statements on various talk pages: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] that call my reverts 'vandalism', imply that I am not allowed to do that, or are personal attacks.

I am only reporting this here as he has (see the last 2 diffs) threatened to have me blocked. I would like to see this user blocked for disruption and incivility. The way, the truth, and the light 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some reference to global warming and the predicted changes that will come about in the region. This will not be easy, since there is a wide variation in the estimates of what is going to happen, and User:Manchurian candidate's contribution is, as you say, pretty insubstantial. However, it would be much better to cooperate with him/her and invite improvements rather than battling over the article. If push came to shove, the addition been sought is not un-encyclopaedic, and it's your reverting of his additions that might appear to be disruptive. PalestineRemembered 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Heads Up! - I have informed User:Manchurian candidate of his involvement in WP:AN/I. --24.136.230.38 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that global warming has been covered in another article. Why not just have a header saying "global warming" then have a "main article: article"? --24.136.230.38 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that Arctic should have something about global warming. However User:Manchurian candidate has clearly been uncivil and does not appear to be capable of a reasonable discussion about it. The way, the truth, and the light 13:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boohoo cry as much as you want.Check the Antarctica link and the creator of the article lists that global warming should be added in the antarctic page.You don't want me to add the link and you say it is fake.son wiki news has that article [[90]] and you are editing it again and again,you don't want the truth to be known.what a hypocrite name you have.I have complained you to the admin,he would settle this out.I still believe that the global warming article should be added. manchurian candidate 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More of your incoherent ranting. The way, the truth, and the light 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan (history) (difference between versions)

source Kurdish flag which in turn sources kdp.se

There is an ongoing revert war over the colors around the wikiproject. I and at least one other editor (Makalp) find the colors to be unnecessarily political. I feel the colors are a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX violation. The removal of the colors has been reverted back as "vandalism" or that with a rationale that the colors have no political or controversial value even though there is a source establishing the contrary.

A past attempt in discussion was mostly ignored

This is a wikiproject so a "content dispute" isn't the case. Measures should be taken to avoid controversies in wikiprojects. If you take a look at wikiprojects about other geographic regions or even wikiprojects on countries (Wikipedia:WikiProject France, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia) no such bordering is seen.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These color are using the to give an image supporting the PKK (which is listed as terrorist) see flag colors of PKK;PKK flag].

one of the contributors declared in edit summary that there is a political agenda.Must.^{T C} 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. It only adds to the controversy. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are revert-warring over a 3 pixel wide boarder around a table? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may say that, yes. There is more to this than 3px borders obviously... -- Cat ^chi? 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support using those colors. They are the colors most commonly associated with Kurdistan - if that is for the aforementioned reasons, so be it. See "Celtic nations" and the templates if you want to see some real political POV. Kurdistan is nothing compared to that.Ploutarchos 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These colors just match the national flag. That makes them thematically relevant and otherwise no big deal. --Masamage ♫ 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is aggressively edit warring across a large number of articles to delete all links to a certain website, and is falsely accusing the editors restoring the links of vandalism. He recently used 198.36.23.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to engage in similar activities. It may be necessary to place a block of an adequate length on this user to prevent similar disruption. If he were to return during the block with a new IP address, all of his edits could simply be rolled back. John254 13:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the user reported to WP:AIV first. Malcourno 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a report regarding this user was recently removed from WP:AIV. John254 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we'll repeat the reasoning: This user has not been communicated with or warned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this matter has been discussed with this user (editing as 198.36.23.228) -- see Talk:Garrett_A._Morgan#Garret_A._Morgan_references_that_contradict_Brinkster. John254 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is from my talk page and clearly needs a more timely response than I can give. Will someone please take a look at it and refer it to AFD or Mediation or take action themselves? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi how are you? i remember you were giving me advices about fixing the article but not to open a new thread on the issue, right? Then now i expect you to come and fix the vandalisms that started since the time Alexius opened a new article about the whole issue of massacres in that time..User hectorian by now already violated three revert rule--laertes d 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only vandalism has been done by Laertes. He has already been banned several times for your nonsense vandalizing articles on issues pertaining to the Greek Revolution. Please read the discussion pages and it should be quite evident that Laertes has managed to contribute nothing of substance other than various vandalism. AlexiusComnenus 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexius stiop this game of following me in every single place, you shoul understand that youre not convinvcing anybody but these same people dont want any mention of the massacres in Peloponnese in a decsent way and thats why people are doing nothing about you..

Magyver, as you know you and others previously voted for the deletion of the article claiming it to be POVfork and now alexius opened a new thread Massacres during the Greek Revolution in which he blatantly impose his national point of views assisted by a number of his greek nationalists and the ignorance of administrators he keep deleting well sourced informations. i personally think that you have a moral responsibility to fix the article, regards..--laertes d 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.183.9.210 is peristently adding the unsourced claim that Donald Watkins is worth $2.5 billion:

[92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

No matter how many times he's been told that wikipedia requires everything to be cited[103], he defiantly persists on re-inserting the unsourced claim over and over again, without even bothering to justify it in his edit summary. While it’s true that a 2002 Washington Post article noted that by various accounts Watkin’s may be worth at $1.5 billion (a statement which itself violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) while also reporting on those who dispute he is a billionaire at at all[104], the user persistenly fails to provide any source at all (even an unreliable source) for any $2.5 billion figure in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Not only that but when even the $1.5 billion claim have been blanced by reliable sources like Forbes which dispute Watkin’s is a billionaire saying you won't find this man on the recent Forbes list of billionaires. We have reason to doubt the number[105] and doubts raised in the Washington Post, the user removes these sources.[106] To me this is also a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pacingcar 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing the matter with this user, beyond in the edit summaries of your reverts? Try writing a message on the user's talk page. You might find WP:DR helpful. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me this is a very clear cut case. You're not allowed on wikipedia to claim someone is worth $2.5 billion unless you have a source claiming they are, and even then you should state that it's only an estimate and list the source. I didn't bother going to his talk page because the user was so unresponsive to complaints in edit summaries and seems to not even care that his assertions are 100% uncited. I figured if he isn't responding to me in his edit summaries, why would he respond to me on his talk page. The only response I'm interested in is him providing a source. But I will leave a message on his talk page just on the small chance it makes a difference, but I think it would have more credibility coming from an admin. Pacingcar 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they didn't see the edit summaries, not everyone is familiar with how the mediawiki software works, edit summaries are never a substitute for constructive discussion. --pgk 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Try to assume good faith: he might not see or understand your edit summaries, or know how to respond to them in his own edit summaries. The first step in dispute resolution is discussion; there's probably no need for admin tools at this point. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just didn't see many edit summaries asking him to stop adding unsourced content, and have left him a friendly comment on his talk page. But if he continues to add the unsourced content, what should I do? Pacingcar 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no deadline and it doesn't sound like he's adding negative information in violation of WP:BLP, so I'd ask myself how important is it that it gets removed/sourced immediately? If it'll wait a few days add a {{fact}} in the relevant place to show it's missing a source, note your concerns on the talk page and then revisit it and remove if needed in a few days. --pgk 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to Jimmy Wales everything on wikipedia that isn't sourced should be aggressively removed as this is essential for us to have any credibility. And it's a pretty extreme claim to say that someone who Forbes magazine refuses to list as a billionaire is in fact a billionaire two and a half times over and the person has now been informed that he needs to add sources and has demonstrated an ability to do so in the past. I would just prefer if we were a little stricter about facts on wikipedia Pacingcar 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]