Bringing this here from WP:WQA. Soccer174 (talk · contribs) has made offensive and racist attacks at another user here, apparantly here, here, here. Grsz^Review! 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block for a bit. Personal and racist attacks after many warnings do not have any excuse. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several more messages in Chinese characters, but here I fall short. Grsz^Review! 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to "beat up" a user and then saying "This is for real and not a threat." leaves precious little wiggle room. I have blocked User:Soccer174 for three days, he should be blocked indefinitely if he continues after this time has elapsed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I hate Cantonese chauvinism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiChauvinism (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody block this sock? Grsz^Review! 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Sock blocked. I've also re-set the 72-hour block of User:Soccer174 per WP:EVADE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there also a way to check if Jing974623 is also a sock? Seemingly he was created purely to support soccer and his arguments. However, his writing style seems different so I'm not sure. Dengero (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try listing at WP:SSP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As I was going through my watch list I stumbled on User_talk:Jakezing, at this revision. I was highly offended by his talk page "rules". I left the user this note. I was also discussing the matter over IRC with other editors, you gave me their opinions and gave input on this. The last bit of the conversation is here, before the user removed the disscssion.

Afterwards he readded his "fixed" rules. I need to go to bed soon, so I'll speed it up.

He then claims he has on been on wikipedia for over 3 years, thinking that this will make him more powerful then others and that he knows every rule. He also left a note on my talkpage about this. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything wrong with his editing? For instance, is his spelling and grammar as poor when editng as it is on his talk page? If so, then I think you've got a complaint; if not, why not just leave him alone? If you don't go to his talk page, then his "rules" can't bother you, so just stay away, no? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about backing off and letting him alone for a bit? He is not disrupting your talk page or articles, is he? Why are you compelled to go to his talk page at all? Edison (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few instances of incivility in there [1] [2], but as for talk page rules, meh. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those rules certainly won't help with constructive collaboration, but his other edits don't seem too bad (mostly vandalism fixing, and some talk page antics with the same poor spelling and occasional dashes of incivility for flavour). I'd post on his talk page to warn it's not a good idea to be so aggressive, but according to his rules, I'm not allowed to =( (even if I have been here significantly longer than him). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Jakezing is easily one of the most uncivil editors on Wikipedia, period. And that's coming from a formidable challenger to that doubtful privilege. Sooner or later he will have to seriously amend his behaviour towards others. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 11:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quite concerned about the "You idiots" bit, which is a widespread personal attack. Shnitzled (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record: As of right now, his "rules" state e.g. "if you'v [sic] come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much, i know the rules" — The truth of which he himself defies directly below where he says "as this is my talkpage, i reserve the right to remove comments as it's my space" (emphasis by me). It isn't "his space", it's the Wikimedia foundation's space. It's appalling that admins here are once again downplaying the proven (and in Jakezing's case all but self-professed) unwillingness to collaborate with others. FWIW, he's gaming the sytem by utilising the leeway the talk page guidelines afford user's with respect to "their own" user talk page to deliberately turn away and offend others. A stern warning is in order, and a ban if he continues. Nothing less. 78.34.134.173 (talk) (Everyme logged out) 78.34.134.173 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You actually brought this to AN/I. You could have been editing the encyclopedia productively. *sighs* What a complete waste of time.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I did. Problems shouldn't be ignored. No need to be a dick about it. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Friday. What's Friday without a little pre-weekend dramarama? -t BMW c- 17:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We typically give users a lot of leeway in their User space, but not to the extent of changing guidelines, or mis-representing them. Any innocent or ignorant user visiting that User Talk page is going to be badly misled. They may be discouraged from discussing editorial issues, or from editing altogether... or they may decide to go and set up their own rules on their own Talk page. None of this is consistent with an open collegiate editing environment where everyone is expected to follow the same guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem this editor does have a large chip on his shoulder for whatever reason. I don't know why people can't edit positively. It's a hobby afterall, and such people make the atmosphere really unpleasant. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up not because it effects me, but it effects other users. I am really disappointed by the response by other editors. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those evaluating Jakezing's conduct: In this edit, User:Jakezing claims to be User:cody6, who was indef-blocked for incivility, later unblocked, by User:Mercury. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about me? Hurray. Most people don't seem to care; I like and hate that about authority.--Jakezing (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is the kind of attitude people are referring to. If you know the rules, why are you behaving like you don't? Far be it from me to poke the bear, but edits like this one, made just over a fortnight ago, clearly demonstrate an attitude far beyond incivility. Your rules meant precisely dick, as far as the rest of were are concerned. Tone it down, simply. Your behaviour is not pleasant to say the very least. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (amended 23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hellevision123 (talk · contribs) and 71.48.128.72 (talk · contribs) have been violating WP:COPYVIO policy for months as copy-pasting TV episodes from news, or official websites, or forums. See User talk:Hellevision123#October 2008. I wonder the two are the same person, or I just dig up just tiny portion of gigantic rotten root by many editors wrongly contributing to such articles. I could not check every contribution of them, so if necessary, checkuser would help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking checkuser 'fu, the best I can do is keep an eye on some of the articles that have been problematic. If we presume they are separate users, I see that each has not contributed copyrighted material since receiving the template copyright warning. If copyright issues persist, stronger action may be necessary. It's obvious that the IP is stable, so a block is possible if required. (Note that it's common to advise editors if they are under discussion here; I will notify accordingly.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention welcomed with Redthoreau (talk · contribs) and Damiens.rf (talk · contribs). Please, someone do something (even if it is to block both of us!!!). User has shown motivation to keep going... --Damiens.rf 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See evidence removal: [3] --Damiens.rf 18:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes admins please do something (as I have continually pleaded for all day in edit diffs). Damiens, seems to be on an irrational anti-quote crusade to delete all quotes he finds on pages I have worked on. He first claimed that no quotes were allowed at all, however once he was shown that they were under wiki policy, now he calls quotes “decoration” and uses a shifting premise of “bad form”, too “beautiful” (your confusion matches mine), or “glorification” (he utilizes them interchangeably as he 10RR edit wars with me throughout the lands of wiki.) Some assistance and clarification from other editors towards Damiens would be helpful in possibly alleviating his anti-quote fanaticism (which I seem unable to properly squelch). He has made it a hobby the last few days to find articles I have worked on, and delete all the quotes on those articles (sometimes just a single quote, which he will then call excessive use of them), knowing that I have added them. This has created an endless repeating edit war, as he also refuses to utilize the talk page for discussion (somehting I have tried to get him to do), but he refuses ... stating that I “don’t own pages” (I agree, however he then acts as if he does) or that I “didn’t justify including them” (months ago, as they remained unchallenged), thus he doesn’t have to justify hastily deleting them. Thank you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first thoughts on this are hum, my second thought on this is that user Damiens.rf should be blocked, all I see is him playing the clown and removing sourced useful material from articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the contribs of both of them, I think that both are edit-warring irresponsibly, and a block of both would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau (who I don't know and have never interacted with) is editing warring but frankly he's editing warring with a troll and a vandal who seems to be removing sourced content from articles and is intend on BLP vios (such as adding pictures of politicians to the waiter article). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I insist there's no offense in adding the picture of Australian Premier John Bannon dressed as a waiter to the Waiter article... unless one believes it's an offense to think someone is a waiter. Also, I'm not for removal of encyclopedic sourced content. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both users for grossly violating WP:3RR. In the last 24 hours: Damiens reverted 4 times on Waiting staff, Red reverted 3; Damiens reverted 4 times on Table service, Red reverted 3; on Che (film), Red reverted 11 times, Damien 10; on Alberto Korda both reverted 9 times; on Camilo Cienfuegos, both reverted 11 times; on Che Guevara (photo) both reverted 12 times. Both users have been around long enough to know about the three revert rule. --Smashville^talk 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth noting that Redthoreau has 3 previous blocks for 3RR violations, last one in July for 1 week. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it goes without saying that 20RR is never an entitlement, good blocks. MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf's edits need to be looked at by people on this board. I'm not saying that they are all bad but this is clearly trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling maybe, but he does have a legitimate point, even if it's unintentional. There is nothing on that image description explaining why it is public domain. Yes, it's a photo of a bridge which appears not to be finished. According to ye olde unreliable source Wikipedia, it is specifically the Paterson railway bridge which was built in 1910, which being earlier than 1955 makes it public domain. Now if only the image page provided some way for readers to verify the identity and age of the bridge we could establish the impossibility that it is still copyright-protected and avoid this discussion completely. We could also explain whether we scanned it from a book or an old newspaper or found it on the Internet. We might even go so far as, I don't know... crediting the photographer maybe? If we can find a name, it is generally a respectful thing to include, even for public domain material produced by people who are very likely deceased. — CharlotteWebb 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But while we are doing that there is no need to put a delete template on the picture. He did this and that's why I say he is trolling. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's likely that noone will care to fix the image unless asked for. If you're against Wikipedia process for treating unsourced conent, you should try to change the process itself, instead of using your administrative prestige to ignore it. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way [4] and he is also editing against policies. Please take this into account for the next block. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We saw him at the Austrlaian project a number of months ago where he seemed to have an obsession with getting images deleted. Some of the text of the nominations was just straight out nasty. Orderinchaos 22:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just images. I'm still bewildered at his attempts to hit Jessica Valenti with a notability tag on the basis that her publisher (a well-established feminist imprint of a major publishing company) was a "vanity press", even well after he'd been informed that he was very wrong about that. Rebecca (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. Paul Austin (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that occur? (Not denying it did, just requesting verification) Orderinchaos 09:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Where did that occur? Could you substantiate this accusation? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos, you're being disingenuous. Whaytou call "obsession with getting images deleted", others would call "application of police", since 99% of the images I've nominated for deletion end up being deleted anyway (mostly non-free pictures of living politicians). --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric Naval, I don't understand how the diff you provided can be interpreted as "Damiens was trolling in order to get things done his way". That diff shows me un-reverting a revert that User:Redthoreau did to List_of_Lebanese_people when he decided to follow-and-revert my edits to articles unrelated to our existing dispute (we were indeed edit-warring over che-guevara related article, when he decided to follow and revert me in articles he had never edited before [5] [6] [7] [8]). And my original edit he reverted in this article was just an uncontroversial removal of red-links from a list. --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens.rf edits should be looked at seriously and if this is possible (i dont know much about wikipedia) he should be asked about his links with (or against) Lebanon. He is "maintaining" the "list of Lebanese people" in a way that is very weird. Is he adminstrator in charge of this page? If this is the case, he should be discharged because either he knows nothing about Lebanese people or he has subtle bias. On the other hand, I suspect him to use multiple accouts in edit wars in order to lead to conflicts and blocks and things like that.

What have I done to this list other than removing red-links? --Damiens.rf 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reactions of others here above who have had the "pleasure" of dealing with Damiens, speaks for itself. Sadly, it seems that within mere minutes/hours of his "unblocking", he has moved on to a new "hobby" of harassing articles and edit warring with Rebecca. I am confident that if most admins really review his full posting history, they will find that he is either extremely overzealous/intolerable to most other editors with poor decorum when it comes to working collaboratively ... or a quasi-troll who somehow gets enjoyment by "rampaging" through wikipedia (deleting cited material as if it was his own personal blog) and tirelessly making many others lives miserable. I have yet to see record of a single instance where he has worked effectively or extensively with another editor.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also had the misfortune to be at the receiving end of Damiens.rf incivility (although I have not been involved in the latest incident). While perhaps some of his deletions were valid (mostly the ones that were not disputed by others), he has claimed that all disputed questions of Non-Free Content Criteria are settled according to his own opinion (like whether a image of someone is replaceable by one of the same person aged many years later as one example), refuses to cooperate with other users on edit disputes and almost never assumes good faith when it comes to images or edit disputes; he is blatantly uncivil and edits in violation of WP:POINT. I may not always have behaved civilly in return but I contend that I was merely upset by the incivility displayed towards myself and others. I completely endorse those who have complained against him in this incident. A lengthy ban on participation in edit wars and "X for deletion" disputes I believe is warranted and would give us the opportunity to see him contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. JRG (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens came right back and went to 5RR on Jessica Valenti. Went for a full week block on this one, since it was so soon after the last one. --Smashville^talk 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to stop arguing with User:Tony1 on Wikipedia, and took the conversation to bugzilla instead, where I figured I could speak more freely and keep the vitriol off this site. User:Tony1 has decided to re-post comments on this site that I've made elsewhere, which I'm fairly certain is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy, and is borderline illegal. Please make sure he is aware of the wrongness of his actions. Personally I'd like to see him blocked for a while, but whatever the appropriate response is (according to policy/precedence) I'm fine with. I don't plan on discussing these topics AT ALL on Wikipedia any longer, since I am unable to constructively discuss things with some of the people here.

See [9] --UC_Bill (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? You engage in nasty personal attack elsewhere, admit the fact, and then moan when you are taken to task for them, and demand the person you attacked is punished? Forget for a moment who posted what where, and ask yourself who is behaving like an asshole here? (See m:Dick)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with Tony telling other editors what you'd said there. If you make similar remarks on Wikipedia we'll show you to the door so fast you'll get whiplash. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Meh. You called him names on Bugzilla, he quoted on you here. I'm trying very hard to get worked up about this "borderline illegal" action, but I just can't. I will note that I don't think the purpose of Bugzilla is to provide a forum for calling other users childish name without fear of blocking. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is stuff posted on another WMF-site, so it is fair game for quoting here. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as resolved? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with resolved tag; are you sure we're done?) Unless we want to discuss UC Bill's behavior, with an eye towards preventing it from occuring on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily buy the "it wasn't technically, actually on Wikipedia, so you can't do anything to me" argument. --barneca (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia sanction for filing an incredibly stupid complaint? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need some sort of 'pointing and laughing at you' template. HalfShadow 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROUT --Smashville^talk 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they create a minor noticeboard and name it after you. — CharlotteWebb 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even better...--Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is being pissed off about re-posting of outside correspondence stupid? User:MBisanz's comment about the material coming from another WMF site is the only relevant comment here. If I'd called Tony an unflattering name in pretty much any other forum, then his reposting of it here would constitute harassment and could be prosecuted, and would be grounds for banning him from WP. I've already stopped posting to any of the MOS/date discussions and will just drop all of this entirely now. Thanks for nothing. --UC_Bill (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what country you can get prosecuted for getting called an asshole, but I haven't heard of it. This isn't WP:AN-Whaaaambulance. --Smashville^talk 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I've given User:Sapphic a warning for calling Tony1 an asshole on wiki. Some translation required SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you people are really something else. You not only openly mock me, but also start tracking down people I'm friends with so you can taunt them as well? I think you're missing the whole point of wp:civil and focusing on the technicalities. There are plenty of ways of being a wp:dick without using foul language, and not all cases of using foul language or name-calling constitute serious attacks. What you've taught me in this case is to never trust the admins again, and to stop trying to use official channels to resolve issues. Great example you're setting, really. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did SheffieldSteel not see the edit summary[10] of UC Bill that caused Sapphic to make that comment? Seems to me Saphhic was merely agreeing with UC Bill, who did not get a civility warning, and has unfairly caught some of the crossfire here. SpinningSpark 01:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I didn't see that edit comment. I read User talk:UC Bill and noticed the remark by Sapphic. No tracking down, no harassment, just a warning for incivility, which I thought would be the end of the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You called someone an asshole and they called you out on it. And you reported them to ANI because you called them an asshole. --Smashville^talk 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony reposted comments from a completely different website, and attributed them to Bill. That's really not cool, regardless of what those comments were. Bill's personal email address is available through the bugzilla interface, and now that connection to his Wikipedia account has been advertised more widely by Tony's actions. Yeah, Bill was being a dick (which is actually rare for him.. I happen to know him in real life and I'm usually the crude one when we talk :) but that doesn't excuse Tony's behavior. And yeah, if somebody had wanted to look into it they could have made the connection between the two accounts themselves.. but now that's been done for them. I don't get why some of you seem intent on provoking somebody who's clearly upset about a perceived loss of privacy. I'll talk to him in person and make sure things are fine. --Sapphic (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User UC_Bill's own complaint that initiated this section indicates that he brought this upon himself. Hence the ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but is "ridicule" the correct response? - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got a better idea? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this section would be a good candidate for the wikipedia joke page. The guy outs himself and then complains about it. You can't make this stuff up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I agree that bringing it here was a mistake - after all, we've got a policy on off-wiki harrasment. However, it could have reasonably ended after the thread was marked as resolved: the comments after that just seem out of place and unnecessary. And yes, I'm aware that anyone accusing someone else of harassment should be prepared to have their own actions looked into, but it should still be civil and appropriate. Seriously - I was really surprised to see you say that it was ok to ridicule another user. I would have thought that it was simply never ok to do so, and that there are better ways of resolving things. - Bilby (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user Barneca, who is an admin, effectively re-opened the discussion. When a user brings a complaint here and gets hoist by his own petard, it's a good source of comic relief. And to be technical, what's being ridiculed is the complaining user's activities. Ridicule drives home a point much better than patting on the head, although I'm still not convinced that UC_Bill understands the irony of it all. He went to another website where he apparently figured he could be uncivil without reproach, and then got caught and complained about it here. Maybe some sympathetic admin could shrink-wrap this section and say "enough, Aldretti". But that hasn't happened yet. Maybe the issue is still considered "open" by some admins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - you see it differently to me. I'm not inclined to agree - my feeling is still that there are much better ways of making a point - but that happens. And I willingly accept that there is a difference between ridiculing the actions and the person. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I just wanted to note that "taking it outside" doesn't necessarily invalidate it as a concern here. Please see Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment. This would suggest that the harassment was actually yours, in pursuing him outside of Wiki space with a personal attack to begin with. Even when done off-wiki, harassing other users can lead to your being blocked or banned. While his reposting your message here may have been a problem by Wikipedia:OUTING#Private correspondence (I've never used Bugzilla and do not know the degree of presumption of privacy in messages sent via that forum), it clearly wasn't intended to harass you, but to call you to account for your incivility. (Note that your message was also a violation of Bugzilla etiquette.) What he probably should have done with it was notify the arbitration committee, but it's very difficult to get up in arms about his violation of your rights as a Wikipedian when it rises from your violation of his. No matter how strongly you disagree with somebody's behavior on Wikipedia, you need to abide by the civility policy and handle your disputes through official channels. That said, I'm inclined to think that Tony's posting of your message should be removed, also according to official policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. However, on that last point, maybe - provided the complaining user understands the problem that he caused, which is not at all evident at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is Bugzilla "private correspondence"? I have just checked and I can succeed in getting everyones e-mail address without logging in to my account. That makes it openly public in my book. Probably shouldn't be like that, but it is. SpinningSpark 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no presumption of privacy, then there may be no problem with reposting it. As I said, I'm not familiar with the environment. I'm not remotely "tech". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thread in question on Bugzilla. You should find that you can read the thread and e-mail any of the participants without creating an account. I don't recommend you read all of it though, there cannot be many things that are more mind numbing than a thread that has been going on for nearly three years on the subject of the technicalities of date formatting. If you want to read the relevant parts I suggest scrolling to the bottom then come up a day or two. SpinningSpark 23:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, hey admins: it's not OK to make fun of people who post here, no matter how frivolous you find their complaint. This is not your playground - don't you have an IRC channel for your fun and games? In the event, you might wish to read Tony1's strident rhetoric at the Bugzilla thread (I just read a very large part of it) and here on Wikipedia, and compare it to UC_Bill's smallish eruption of incivility - then consider that it occurred not on en:wiki. You are en:wiki admin's right? Import of off-site activity is discouraged, n'est-ce pas? We don't go after Guy for what he says on his blog, nor anyone else - en:wiki is en:wiki. I don't condone UC_Bill's language, but it's way better than the snide jabs several above have slipped in. Franamax (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the complaining user brought this upon himself. Wikipedia is not an island, it's part of the internet, and to go offsite to complain about someone, and then complain when the other guy brings it back here, is the height of absurdity and it's deserving of ridicule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it appears that you're not an admin, although you do seem to have a propensity for commenting here. Perhaps you labour under some misconceptions: ANI is not meant to provide "comic relief" as you note above, nor is it meant for you to publicly express your amusement; and en:wiki is meant for the dealings of en:wiki, not the entire internet - and en:wiki/ANI is meant for admin action on this wiki resulting from actions by editors on this wiki. It is not an open forum. If you look at the Bugzilla thread you will see UC_Bill proposing actual technical fixes to a technical problem being discussed on a technical thread - and losing his cool. How you can construe that as "going off-site to complain" is beyond me, and the idea that it's "deserving of ridicule" is, well, deserving of ridicule. Tony shouldn't be bringing in outside discussions, no more, no less. UC_Bill shouldn't be amping out on people either, but that's not our concern, it's Bugzilla's. It says "en.wikipedia.org" at the top of my screen - what's on yours? Franamax (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved admin (ie. not me) take a look at this, please? Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what? You can't expect us to sift through two solid pages of text, looking for your civility concern... :-) Give us some hints. Tan | 39 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see several users who are not being very civil with one another. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... Start with everything and anything User:Saintvlas22/User:24.83.177.183 has said. Skip around all you want. --Masamage ♫ 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not actual incivility, I just see disagreement and bitterness at how wikipedia is merging fancruft fan articles. About the upper half of the thread:

"since their royal Wikipedia highness' have decreed in their own heads and through idiocy of the Wikipedia policies that [the article] will no longer exist, (...) their reasoning is faulty and their explanation lacking much fairness or common sense, at least to normal people. (...) So sorry if I'm not all sunshine and daisy's when addressing them - idiots deserve to be spoken to like idiots if that's how they want to act willingly"[11] "Well then, if I am a MASSIVE idiot, does that mean that I can at least join the club now?" [12]

Followed by a long rant on how WP:N is illogical and unfair to fictional characters, and how character articles should be written in-universe "so that there is insight gleaned into their roles, characters and traits" [13], complaints that characters with a huge role on the series get only a crappy paragraph on a list with "real-world" stuff and lots of complaint on how wikipedia rules are stupid, not based on reason, etc [14]

This user is just venting his frustration at how wikipedia works. Just warn him that he is cluttering the talk page of an article, and to bring it to Wikipedia:Village pump, WT:N or to talk pages.

P.D.: wow, the discussion goes downhill by the end of the thread. I have collapsed it and told people to bring it somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the WikiQuette Alarts which is ideal for this sort of problem. It is best to avoid ANI unless some sort of administrative action is required. When filing a report please provide diffs. Many thanks. I am marking this resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not resolved. I am an administrator struggling with whether or not to block somebody who, incidentally, has just made another post calling me an idiot to my face when I have been nothing but polite. I need somebody else's help. And, again, here is your list of diffs. --Masamage ♫ 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i assume someone is going to block me? Instantly defining me as a troll seems kind of the easy way out isn't it? Have I not raised any concerns that are valid - at least not to you I suppose. I find it's quite schoolyard bullying tactics when you paraphrase the arguments I have made so you paint the ideal picture you want of me - that I am a hounding, rabid 'fan' who detests rules of any kind. If you want a fair argument, I guess I was right in thinking this isn't the place for it. You've already decided what you want, so I guess i should just wait and take it, as usual. Saintvlas22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't paraphrased anything. I have provided links and asked other people to look into the matter. And as I've said repeatedly (so why bother again? I don't know) your concerns are perfectly valid and many people share them. --Masamage ♫ 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you just fine - I just have a hard time processing the fact that you claim to find certain rules senseless and stupid, yet you continue to abide by them for no other reason then that they're rules. It's not 'rules are rules; you continue to mention that things can be changed, yet you obviously make no intention of taking any steps toward said change, since you're fine in going with the flow for whatever reason instead of doing something about it. This is why I cited insincerity in you - you do something you said you didn't really believe in, yet you turn around and do a fine good job of enforcing rules that you backtracked and said were needless anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC) P.S: Not sure if I should post here, but you'll probably just delete this anyways on your page so i wouldn't know if you got it.[reply]

Like everywhere else, you can post here all you want as long as you're not disruptive.

You're right that I think certain rules are stupid, but actually, the ones I dislike are not the same as the ones you dislike. I'm following these particular rules--notability and so on--because I happen to agree with them. You don't have to, and again, you're welcome to argue the point in the correct location. --Masamage ♫ 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline has it's merits, but it obviously needs to change it's stance in regards to fictional works. Again, I am sure we both know I won't get anywhere arguing my point in the Village Pump - you're also going to compress everything in the Wikimoon articles together anyways, so whatever I say is moot. This wheels back once again to why you asked if there were objections if you weren't going to listen anyways. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried giving Saintvlas22 the benefit of the doubt, but he has also made personal attacks on several user talk pages outside of that discussion and refuses to stop.[15][16] Ironically enough, I tried to be a voice of reason in here, and left both Saintvlas22 and Jujube warnings for their incivility asking them step back and calm down. In the end, I got attacked for it as well[17]. Both he and JuJube are continuing to go at each other on the Talk:Death Busters page and its really disrupting the entire discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from posting on the Death Busters' talk page - I see that it has pretty much degenerated into an extremely off topic discussion of basically nothing. I apologize for disrupting the page in that sense, my own opinions and previously expressed views not withstanding. And Collectonian, you were not 'attacked'; I only pointed out that I find it hard to believe you can act as a neutral party when you have already clearly expressed your opinion on me in the negative. If we are going for your criteria on what a verbal jab is, then you have already committed one yourself by referring to me as you did to JuJube. This is where my doubt about your ability to act as a neutral party comes from; I am not being unreasonable as you would like to think, I am simply alerting you of my concern and would ask that you refrain from turning it into something else that you have so conveniently excluded yourself from. Saintvlas22 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[18][19] You have been far from civil in both of those diffs. This is part of an overall pattern of attacking editors who disagree with you instead of making sound arguments to support your points. It also doesn't help you when you open by declaring that other editors are acting in bad faith if they disagree with you in your initial comments. --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are in responses that Collectonian and JuJube left me - responses left on our personal pages, as was requested. Again, I am the only one being singled out as far as I can tell - those responses were not mine solely, as I obviously had to have had another person to respond to. My point was that any attempts I tried to get my own point across was met with not just resistance, but utter dismissal. A call for objection was had, and I answered. Though I was less than pleasant, I was not uncivil - I did not instantly go into the foray in a fit of hostility as you imply. I stated my objections, and only reacted with actual hostility when I was blatantly provoked. Saintvlas22 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to take it to talk did not mean you guys should both keep making personal attacks, nor does that make it okay for you to turn around and attack me too. And yes, you are making personal attacks, lots of them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last I'll say on this issue, then I'm done. Saintvlas22's behavior is obviously exceedingly terrible to everyone except him. He justifies his behavior by saying "I'll say what if I say, and if anyone is offended, tough". I guess it's the fact that he's riding Masamage, an admin I've never seen be anything but civil, so hard that made me RAGE. There's a point where WP:AGF goes out the window and it's clear that an editor is trying to rile things up for the sake of making some point about "lol wikipedia = communism" and it's pretty clear here. You could do a non-indef block on him in the spirit of policy, but I don't think this is an editor who's here to do anything but waste everyone's time. Okay, that's all. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have all wasted our time - at least you guys get what you think is 'Wikipedia standard'. The article I objected to from being merged is getting shafted like so many other articles, so at least you have that. And no, I am not here just to waste time (i.e, a troll as you are implying), I am here to edit and do some good. Your analogy of Wikipedia = communism is actually a good one, surprisingly. There isn't any laughing matter about it though - it plain sucks, and serves as being pretty unfair when nobody but the select few who deem themselves worthy can do anything worthwhile here, at least not without them 'allowing' it. It also wouldn't do for you to break your precious policies either just for me; but I guess you could get away with it, since you'll probably be excused just because this seems to a private club. Saintvlas22 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sainvlas22, while I have considerable sympathy for your point of view about these articles, this isn't an effective way to go around promoting it. Calm restrained argument will be taken more seriously than general attacks. The ways to show that consensus might be changing are to discuss concisely on the appropriate policy talk pages or on individual article pages, and see if others take up your argument. Additional vehemence is less, not more, convincing. But, as a frequent supporter of these articles, I advisee you that the most important thing you could do right now to help is to try seriously to find what discussions of plot and characters do exist and can be used as sources--it can be done in a surprising number of cases. Even if everyone agreed with you, it would still be much better to actually have the sources for these as for all articles. And for those who will never agree with you (or me), even they will accept articles with sufficient sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Article deleted at AfD after WP:SNOW close. --MCB (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want a second opinion here, before I start blanking 90% of an article... Is Michael Guglielmucci rife with BLP problems? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article arguably shouldn't exist under WP:BLP1E (unless there's some indication that he's notable by reason of his preaching or songwriting, notwithstanding the cancer hoax), but other than that it doesn't look too bad. It's about as balanced as an article like this can be, I think (which is why we try to avoid having articles like that), and contentious stuff looks to be reliably sourced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Sarcasticidealist - the claims made are sourced, the sources seem reliable and accurately reported in the article, but BLP1E seems to indicate that the reasoning for having an article at all is somewhat questionable. I'd suggest leaving it alone content wise but AFD the article under BLP1E. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AFD it. That's a prime example (IMHO) of the sort of article that brings wikipedia into disrepute. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What really brings us into disrepute is unreferenced negative stuff, and especially unreferenced FALSE negative stuff. This was not unreferenced and appears to be true. We are sensitive to negative biographical stuff in general (lots of "reason behind" reasoning associated with WP:BLP etc), but this is only bad, not horrible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I disagree, it's a tittle-tattle article that has no place in an encyclopaedia - but that's an argument for a different place ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD started here. Tan | 39 00:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – TW and HG are back up. --Dynaflow babble 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle seems to have gone dark, just in time for the Friday night drunks (Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Twinkle not working?). Anybody have AzaToth's number? --Dynaflow babble 07:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, I think after 1 quick test on the way out of the house, WP:Friendly is also down. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle is down, too - I can do one revert after which it claims I have been logged out and does not deliver warnings to vandals. There is a related discussion on VPT. A recent software change caused problems, some API modules were disabled, and that has brought down both Twinkle and Huggle. – Sadalmelik ☎ 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, during this entire time, I have had no problems with Twinkle. Oh well :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 21:00

I and a few others have asked User:Sarumio on User talk:Sarumio#Villages > Towns about a very large number of edits in which typically articles have the word "village" in them changed to "town". Some problems with these are given in the talk page discussion I have already given the link to. A glance at the User contributions of Sarumio shows that the list is extensive, includes various "List of..." articles, and has happened so quickly that, given the errors already discovered, it seems likely that these changes have been made without any real check as to whether they are appropriate or not. Since I have already asked Sarumio about this, I'm asking if a different, non-involved admin. can take a look at this, and investigate whether and if a mass-revert of the edits would be in order (I'm not sure how this is achieved.) Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that he is now saying that he was eliminating contradictions (though he added one in the case of Malpas, Cheshire) and drawing them to our attention. I must say this is not a good way to do this, as the sheer number of articles this has been done to makes the issue almost unmanageable. In my opinion, he should have collated the articles together and posted a message about the problems on one or more relevant and active project, such as WT:UKGEO.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He apparently wasn't checking to see which was correct if that is what he thought he was doing. There have been similar complaints about this editor in the past. In this case, the 3rd article I checked was a village and he'd changed it to a town. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted on his talk page, anyone who has worked with UK settlements in detail would have realised that fewer errors would have resulted if all inconsistencies had been resolved by changing the entries all to "village", but that wouldn't have been a good way to proceed, either. Far better to draw up a list of them, post them to an appropriate active project, and then systematically work through them to determine what was the verifiably correct information, possibly with the assistance of others who I am very sure would be happy to help.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Spilsby this editor changed Keal Cotes and West Keal from villages to towns although neither village has ever had more than 200 inhabitants and have never received a Royal Charter as a town. The changes may well be good faith rather than vandalism, but they are ill researched, un-discussed, random and wholesale and are causing many people a great deal of work correcting the mayhem. The effect is scatter-gun editing. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stop. A warning would be appropriate if inappropriate and unhelpful edits continue after a civil explanation on his talk page. Edison (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

122.167.137.151 (talk · contribs) has been rather single mindedly re-adding content that is POV, unsourced and better suited for the talk page. Communication has failed, and I've resorted to a 3RR warning as he's certainly in technical violation. Perhaps someone could better explain things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'ed the page for one week, and username blocked ChristUniversity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs · logs) has been busy adding unreferenced content (not a crime, but he puts it back in when reverted), creating some odd articles (please take a look), and deleting text at Talk:Vomiting. The first time I just restored it, but he came back and deleted more text, adding an edit written to make it look as though it was written by an administrator. [20] I've blocked him for 31 hours - can someone please review this and see if the block is ok, and suggest anything else that might be usefully done? I'm not too happy with what he's done with Jewish Arabs and am trying to figure out if his newest article has any validity. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that your actions were correct. If that block you imposed had been a longer one (think a week or more), I might take issue with that kind of punishment. But impersonating an admin, constantly adding and re-adding unreferenced material, and deleting content from a talk page is enough to warrant a short-term block. "I contested the relevance of the user's section because it had nothing to do with the article ... Dougweller has abused his power by blocking me. Clearly, it was none of his business and I would like to contest his right to block me."[21] This all seems irrational, given that it is administrators' duty to deal with instances such as this. The block was warranted, very much so. I can't imagine that he'll change, but perhaps giving him some advice as to how to correctly add content and how to explain rationales would help. --tennisman 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see someone has responded to him saying the block was correct, and he's deleted that. Which is not promising. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only gets worse, now he's attacking another editor writing

"Problem report: MBisanz MBisanz has deleted my "mongol jews" page and called it incoherrent nonsense. MBisanz, you mind your own pathetic rubbish business, stop annoying me, and leave me alone!".

Very nicely in a box I might add. A quick learner? Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well not that nicely because he didn't close the box. Also a bit strange that MBisanz called an essentially empty page "incoherent nonsense" when deleting it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the weird way he had done the heading formatting, it look like nonsense, although test and no-context also could have applied. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do it myself as i need to go offline now and so can't watch his edits, but i think there has been some newbie biting going on here. As far as I can no one has actually tried talking to him about things, (except via edit summaries and by templating his talk page, which is no way to communicate). My impression is that he isn't as unreasonable as people think. He has apologised for his actions after all and he responded to my request for civility. So I think the block probably isn't necessary, but someone should take him under their wing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him, given him a Welcome template (I'd tried earlier with Twinkle and failed, so found the manual one), and wrote him a note. I hope this helps. Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've recreated Mongol Jews as a redirect to Khazars, since it's a vaguely plausible redirect. It probably wants at least temporary protection, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I should have unblocked. So far, (recalling that his reason for impersonating an admin seems to be that he wants to be an Admin), a post has been made on his page by new user, only edit, nominating him (doesn't say for what), he's created an article ITunes Applications with no sources after I carefully pointed out he should create articles in his own userspace and source them first - and in any case ITunes is an application, the article doesn't make sense. He's turned Jewish Arabs which was a redirect back into an article (again), and there is still Pasha (Quran) which isn't sourced and for which I can find no source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

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

First post to GooglePedia12's talkpage asking if he wants to be "nominated" for something? Checkuser? Block as blatent sock? D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as GooglePedia12 (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me sad for some reason... Arakunem^Talk 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it! And he's been editing not logged in as both Googlepedia12 and PEOPLSP. Time to reblock? Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed new user Terryola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asking why he couldn't post new articles about National Register of Historic Places properties in Westchester County, New York. (See this edit to User talk:Doncram and this edit to Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York. Oddly enough, they're all about places in New Rochelle, New York, the same places that heavily-banned Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has expressed an interest in. It seems kind of fishy that a new user is asking why a banned user can't post new articles, and then contributes the entire stub content. I'm smelling a sockpuppet, but I might be a little suspicious. Does anyone want to persuade me in one direction or the other? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs themselves wouldn't be by themselves suspicious, but his third edit was to create a page of useful links that includes links to pages most new users wouldn't know about. Something about this user smells--but is it the odor of a sock? Might be Checkuser time. Blueboy96 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WP:DUCK case. Jvolkblum sometimes makes a list of useful stuff on his socks. Also, he added an image to an article[22] that was uploaded by a sock that is part of a checkuser-confirmed sockfarm that has been linked to Jvolkblum based on behaviour. Block him already :P --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That diff was enough for me. Sockblocked. Blueboy96 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked sleepers UnclePhilB (talk · contribs), MiltyMilt (talk · contribs), Billsrole (talk · contribs), RIMtechs (talk · contribs) and Klamfph (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month I reported a persistent vandal on the 118.137.x.x range and that range was blocked for three months by User:Nihonjoe. However, the user has shown up again, this time as 61.247.11.106 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) and continues to do the same stuff that got him block (vandalism that implies American companies own Japanese animation studios). Requesting another block of this user. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User warned; is now inactive

I'd like you to know that user Crazyaboutlost has started today a bad-faith persecution to my contributions in several articles:Carmen Miranda, Portuguese Brazilian, Ethnic groups in Brazil, Brazilian people, University of São Paulo, Italian Brazilian, Afro-Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian, Oizumi, Gunma, Rio de Janeiro, among others.

I already had problems with this user, who likes to chase others. He seems to be trying to destabilize the articles creating an edit-war or vandalize what I do. Please, may you help me? Opinoso (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. Watch the edit warring yourself! Tan | 39 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinoso has been blocked for three months from portuguese wikipedia. He is the vandal. Look at my editions and see that I'm correcting his mistakes. [Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Brazilian&diff=247636672&oldid=247590706], for example.Crazyaboutlost (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted enough about this guy, the last time is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive485#IP_76.167.244.204. This is a self-admitted sock [23] of Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) (and Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)). When the IP sock was blocked, he asked for account creation to be enabled [24]. When no answer was forth-coming, he basically admitted that he is going to wait until the two-week block is over, and continue his behaviour [25]. When one week of that block elapsed, he posted a "count down" [26]. Now with four days remaining in his block, he's posting yet more [27].

Now, the last time I posted this, I was basically scorned, saying "oh he's posting in the heat of the block, you don't know what you're talking about". So here is my last attempt, before I say WTF? Here is a blatantly disruptive user, who's been blocked four times. And now, during a two-week block, he's admitting that when the block expires, disruption will continue? No, nevermind the last attempt, here it is: WTF? Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to block some IPs indefinitely, generally that's frowned upon. Other than the countdown, which everyone should just ignore, wait till the block is over, if there's disruption, block again. It's not that big of a deal, and it's not like there's going to be any kind of permanent damage done by extending the block before it's over. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then tell you what: you deal with it on Tuesday. I've asked until I'm blue in the face for help with this guy, and I get the runaround. Seeya Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this and found the comments sufficient to block for a further 10 days; the intent is either to disrupt the encyclopedia or to cause a person to believe that they will do so, which is itself disruptive, so I have in effect reset the block. Of course, if they learn not to broadcast their intent then it will be a case that the block will expire and we shall have to deal with whatever then occurs, but we (or specifically, Yngarr) do not have to concern ourselves about it for a fortnight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Moleman is indefblocked, why only 10 days for his IP? I know we can't indefblock IP's but why not block for say 6 months? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP appears to be dynamically allocated; most likely, someone else is already on that IP address, and Moleman is on something else. If not now, he will be within 10 days. Blocking the IP for more than a week or so wouldn't do any good stopping him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but remember that he didn't even realise that he could edit without creating an account until recently! He's not the sharpest tool in the box, and may well not know what he would need to do to make that happen. I mean he kept the same address for a week after all. Obviously I'm following BEANS here but I'd say a longish block is worth a try for the block message alone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When blocking ip's I generally err on the side of caution (blocking again is an easy task) and rather than look through the address tools - which bewilder me anyway - I look to see how long they have been obviously editing from that address and take it forward, or (as in this case) I follow the lead of the last blocker and re-enact that. Of course, if they are that dull, I could always block short but tell them it was for a long time... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Moleman is on another IP address, then why is he posting from that IP address, to that IP talk page? Cable modem providers assign DHCP addresses based on the MAC address. Since the MAC address doesn't change (there are ways to force a change which are beyond the scope of this discussion, but if you wish to talk, feel free to drop me a talk note, since I actually do work on this stuff to pay my bills), there is a high likelyhood of him acquiring and maintaining that IP address for a very long period of time. And how does one know this is a cable modem provider? Using the whois for this IP address. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why someone just didn't protect the IP's talk page for three more days. He probably won't know what's going on and the limited protection will keep him from baiting people. We'll see in a few days if the IP rotates or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

 – What a nightmare of a thread. Ceoil, you have been suggested to stay away and find something else to edit until you have sufficiently cooled down. Scarian has apologized. Looie496, using "sweetheart" and "little sugar dumpling" is not grounds for desysoping. Closing this because nothing else can be garnered out of this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa: these situations are made more of a nightmare by incorrect conclusions and faulty archiving. Can someone please point out where Ceoil was asked to edit something else until he cooled down, or why that is an appropriate response to being poked by an admin over his block log? It's possible that I completely missed a chapter, or alternately, Seicer completely missed a chapter. This is exactly the sort of issue and pattern on this board that we are trying to address, so the problem doesn't keep recurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Add: Perhaps you're referring to Theresa Knott's post? Even so, this doesn't seem like a helpful way to summarize the situation or to help avoid the recurring issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. It's a stearn, yet polite manner to say, "move on because pressing the matter further will result in no action." Quite frankly, the dog has been pitted through the mud, beaten with a stick, and its soul being repossessed by a feline. He was asked to cool down; I was not specifically re-requesting that, but only echoing previous comments. The remainder was my suggestion (to Looie496, especially). I don't know what can be accomplished from a thread that was derailing and becoming completely pointless. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but who exactly do you think you are to make that determination? This feels like precisely the sort of "I'm an admin--I know/am better than you" attitude that created this entire situation. "Stearn" and polite? Like a babysitter admonishing an 8-year-old? This is a really frustrating attitude and it seems to abound from the administrators that patrol ANI. The silence and lack of empathy from administrators on the big picture issue being discussed here, meanwhile, remains dispiriting. This is about a legitimate and recurring issue (beyond the scope of the immediate situation), it's not coming from trolls but rather some of the project's hardest working editors, it's not been at all resolved, and already discussion has been forcibly muted twice? What are the philosophical underpinnings for this rationale, that apparently prevails at ANI, that we can best deal with problems by stomping swiftly on those who point problems out? --JayHenry (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that issue is not part of this incident in particular, and this is not the place to discuss it. Suigetsu

Ah yes. Never the time. Never the place. Thanks for reminding me. See you in a few threads when the issue recurs with different people and we all wonder why. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue of this thread and this incident; perhaps we need a new thread at WP:AN to discuss the underlying issue, as it apparently is only getting worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Suigetsu 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, Sweetart. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Man with one red shoe seems to have a habit of wiping his talk page, which I see has contained quite a few warnings relative to the amount he has contributed. I am currently choosing not to get into an edit war with him at Bucharest even though I think he is utterly wrong on the matter at hand. Someone who has not been in conflict with him might want to look into the pattern of his edits, I've seen just enough to tell me that I'm not willing to assume his good faith, which means I should stay out of the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking into the rest of it, any user has the right to blank their own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Oren0 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, when an editor gets reported and an admin finds they have a habit of blanking their talkpages which just happen to contain many warnings regarding the same things... Well, it usually doesn't go well for that editor. However, if an editor becomes a well regarded member of the community - who needs those reminders of a less than savoury past cluttering up the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people looking into my history. As for blanking my page is not related to any warning, I don't let any comment on it. So, what is the complain about, my edits in Bucharest, or my blanking my talk page -- just to be sure that I understand what is this about. I'm pretty sure I didn't break any rule. So, what's this about? man with one red shoe (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hoped to just add a request for someone independent to take a look at your conduct, and reach whatever conclusion they might, and other than the request I intended to stay out of it myself, because I'm probably biased by how I crossed paths with you. But since you ask me directly:

1. I thought your removal at Bucharest was wrongheaded, so I reverted it with an explanation. You reverted me back.
2. I don't engage in edit wars, so I did what I usually do in a situation like this to try to work out whether to work this through with an unfamiliar editor on on the talk page of an article. My two quickest guides to someone's character on Wikipedia are their user talk page and their contributions. The short of it is, I didn't particularly like what I saw. It looks to me like you make a lot of contentious edits (and few uncontroversial ones), and have a habit of blanking your talk page. Blanking your talk page is allowed, but it is generally considered dubious conduct (I think pretty much any admin will back me up on that). Contentious edits are allowed, but a pattern of them does not suggest to me someone I want to deal with, and can indicate trolling or any of a number of other problems.
3. What I saw was enough for me to conclude that I didn't want to spend my time engaging you in discussion (though I guess I've now wasted even more time than that would have taken. Oh, well). It was also enough to make me wonder whether on net you are contributing positively to the building of an encyclopedia.
4. Taking off my editor hat and putting on my admin hat, I was a bit concerned about the combination of contentious edits and blanking the talk page. I felt someone should follow up and see if there was a problem here (there might or might not be, I really have no firm idea), but since I was already annoyed over the Bucharest matter I basically recused myself from being the person who would follow up.

In short, I've asked here for someone disinterested to look into the pattern of your edits, because what I saw concerned me. If they say "no problem", fine, at least from an admin point of view. That's definitely the last I am saying on this. I'm no more interested in having a fight here than in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to do this. I'm pretty thick skinned, and generally detest people coming here to complain of incivility or personal attacks. But completely unprovoked remarks about me by Everyme (talk · contribs) have left me speechless. I'm not going to say more, to resist poisoning the well, but I'd very much appreciate some admins to examining this comment and then this thread, and take whatever action seems good to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I tried to resolve this situation, unsuccessfully. See my comments here. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful to L'Aquatique for her attempts. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to get it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Everyme has been made aware of this discussion, can I summise the concern is that Everyme has offended Scott MacDonald's sensibilities by inferring that an good faith difference of opinion by SM has been termed "intellectual dishonesty"? If so, I agree that Everyme should apologise for the lack of good faith shown and intemperate language used - different philosophies can produce different results from the same evidence; to label a differing conclusion as "dishonest" is both arrogant and incivil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, apologies for not informing everyme, but I didn't want to be seen as baiting him, so I was staying off his userpage. If it had just been the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, I'd have let it pass. But he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade. An apology would be nice personally, but that;s not the point, it is more important from the project's point of view that we communicate that there are limits, beyond which we don't tolerate this attitude. I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Everyme been aware that use of that name (it means nothing to me) would have been particularly offensive to you, or to anyone, and is it possible that they still misunderstand that this is the case? I have to say that I missed this point when reviewing the links. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em, his post doesn't make sense without it. But read all his remarks and draw your own conclusions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Ashley Todd is the name of the hoaxer... On repeat review I don't think that Everyme meant what you have taken it to mean (IMO, regarding concerns over the BLP considerations of someone who themselves are admitted liars coupled with the "intellectual dishonesty" language), but they have not made any effort to explain themselves better and certainly not taken the route of apologising for any misunderstanding - but rather simply requested you to review the past content and draw different conclusions. I would prefer that Everyme made some comment here before seeing if any admin action is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe he meant something else? Maybe when he called me dumb, and stupid or dishonest, he was actually trying to say something nice as well?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the real issue here is that this is ultimately about McCain-Obama. In a couple of weeks, Everye will lose interest in this, and probably Scott as well. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not American, and have no partisan allegiances. I'm not sure that political stress excuses Everyme's behaviour.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What then excuses your behaviour? Concern about BLP? Hardly so. And for anyone who doesn't know: Yes, I'm for Obama and I despise vicious racebaiting, whether it comes from a confused young woman or from anybody else. More importantly however, I'm worried about encyclopedic accuracy and quality of discussion. Consider that the entire dispute began when Scott actually tried to argue against "Ashley Todd's mugging hoax" as the article title thusly. I responded to that by bitchslapping his comment, and I maintain that I was not only right, but doing the right thing. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, Scott, thank you for your honesty in not informing me about this ANI thread. Thank you so much. I'm not entirely sure where I gave you the impression that I might possibly prefer not being notified over being "harassed" (a favourite buzzword of BLP-policy-fans btw, oh the irony). Well, for the record: I would have preferred it had you notified me, which I personally regard as a matter of basic politeness. Maybe you, Scott, would interpret a simple notification of an ANI thread about yourself as "harassment", but, just to kindly inform you about it, not everyone would and certainly not myself. Thank you very much for being so very considering and honest there. Wonderful.
  
  As to the merits of the thread itself: I've explained my position and my reasoning over and over, without getting any reply as to the merit of my reasoning. For Scott to say that "[...] he also, without any provocation, compared me to Ashley Todd (a liar and a "race baiter"), and then when I (fairly mildly) invited him to remove his comment, I was subjected to a further abusive tirade" is yet another comment I can only ... marvel at. I made it clear, both in my initial comment, then again at my user talk, that what I meant was the perception of some extent of intellectual dishonesty (for the record: my according reasoning has not been responded to by anyone so far). Deliberately mixing it up with Todd's racebaiting (an entirely different point in my initial comment, mind you) is, well, a wee bit far-fetched to say the very very least. So far-fetched indeed that I yet again can hardly think of any other valid explanation for why he would do that (and Scott did it in his initial comment at my talk page already).
  
  Scott refused to respond to my explanations, instead chose to be "just rather stunned". Well, again, I ask you, and this is all I care about: Why, just why, would you, at that article talk page, produce an arbitrary definition of "hoax" which you must know is entirely made up by yourself and wrong on top of that — and, most ironically, serves your stance in the article? Why would you do that? There are not so many possible explanations I can conjure up for that. Please respond to my reasoning for once. You, or anybody else who feels up to the task. Consider that I also made it very clear that in saying that I perceived his comment there as intellectually dishonest, my intention was obviously (or so I think) not to personally attack Scott. It was merely something I arrived at as the imho most likely conclusion of my reasoning. I did not comment on Scott, I commented on his comment, and told him in no unclear terms what I think of his comment, and, more importantly, why I do. Everyme 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a footnote here, but I'd like to note that Scott's memory appears to fail him when he claims above that "I repeat, that I'd never interacted with him before." Everyme 07:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of comment about another editor is completely unacceptable: "I didn't assume for a second that you, Scott, might actually be dumb enough to believe your own bullshit, like your definition of what a hoax is. But ok, I'll leave the choice to you: Either you are intellectually dishonest, or you're stupid." The fact that you refuse to admit it was wrong or strike it is concerning as this is clearly a personal attack. (Full disclosure, I've had previous disagreements with Everyme) Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your explanation for his awkward definition of "hoax" at that article talk page? I merely summarised all the possible alternative explanations I could think of. Since I believe Scott is intelligent, that leaves intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for why he would give an arbitrary definition that just so happens to play to his stance on the article. Again, and for hopefully the last time: It's not a personal attack, it's applied logic. Also, again: Prove me wrong and I'll happily retract. But right now it's just not in my hands, I feel like I've done my homework. Please respond to my reasoning, which concluded with me seeing some degree of intellectual dishonesty as the most likely explanation for Scott's initial comment. It's the most charming of the possible explanations I could think of: I was actually being polite and carefully weighed my limited knowledge of Scott. Everyme 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have the time to get involved with this, so I can't give an opinion either way, but I have previously had to negotiate with Everyme over gross incivility after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash and I got the impression that was not the first time, either. Maybe, if we decide this was unsuitable (again, remember I haven't actually gone over this in detail), it's time somene dished out a block. How long are we going to leave this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a truly hilarious situation. I can either renounce, against my better current knowledge, what I assume to be flawless reasoning on my part, or face a block. Well, I'll have to go with the block then because I am unable to discover a flaw in my reasoning and nobody bothered to even respond to my reasoning. Nevermind that I felt insulted by Scott's way of POV pushing there, and how he insulted his fellow editors' intelligence. But at least he did it civilly, didn't he. And that's what counts. Fuck my reasoning, fuck encyclopedic accuracy. Right on. Everyme 09:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'd appreciate it if the section could be renamed from the imho quite misleading "remarks" name to "Reasoning by Everyme", or alternatively "Flawed reasoning by Everyme", depending on a response by anyone who actually bothers to look at the situation at hand and doesn't merely respond on their own grudge. I am as civil as the situation allows me to be. No more, no less. And it's once again fantastic to see for how little valid reasoning counts on Wikipedia, and how zero effort to provide a valid reasoning is being constantly indulged if only the user follows the hivemind definition of "civility". Everyme 10:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...what I assume to be flawless reasoning..." is beyond hilarious; it goes a long way to evidence Scott MacDonald's complaint. No matter how "flawless" you might consider your reasoning, you have a duty to explain yourself in civil terms to a query (and you are required to AGF as regards such queries); your responses are uncivil, and arrogant, and unconducive to engendering a consensual editing atmosphere - being right isn't enough. Speaking of being right, are we not supposed to use reliable sources when ascribing motive or characterisations to a living person? Verifiability, not truth, is the basis of complying with BLP concerns, so ultimately "flawless reasoning" or lack of is unimportant. I strongly suggest that the discussion is directed to how the reliable sources describe the individual, and take it from there. LHvU (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been being constantly bitey to me about my articles. See here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Imnotacoolguy Schuym1 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified him of this thread. I'd suggest some diffs to help but really I'd suggest going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are in the link provided. Schuym1 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation

How do I create a Requests_for_mediation? I would like to create a Requests_for_mediation for Joe the Plumber.

Since I tried to create this, another user edited Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, complicating things more.

PS I know this is the wrong forum, but since wikipedians tend to gravitate towards controversy, this is one of the most frequented pages with a lot of veteran editors.

Please help? Inclusionist (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out. Simply really, really bad instructions. Does anyone know what template this is, I want to make a request to change it:

To file a request: Cases are created on subpages of this page. To do so, insert the name of the article (the main article, not twelve different articles or the names of the parties) in the box below (do not remove the text in the box, add to the end only) and click "File request." You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request; be careful not to change the format of the text.

Inclusionist (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way a request for mediation will accomplish anything in the next week, and after that it won't matter. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what the template is for the above box? Thanks. I filed the mediation and did it wrong. sigh. Inclusionist (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, found it. [36] thanks everyone. Inclusionist (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Reporter blocked 48 hours Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user Baki66 keeps reverting edits without consensus or giving reason, he has also performed ethnic mudslinging in my direction. please help.Bursteam (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's edit warring. Please take the 48 hours I've just given you to read over what consensus is and our policy on personal attacks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KyleSkitKlub (talk · contribs) is usng his/her User page as a Web server. I asked them if they were planning on actually doing some editing of the encyclopedia, and they got obnoxious and said they'd start deleting edits I've made if I didn't leave them alone. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. I'll not delete the userpage just yet - it looks like User:Gb gave them a 24-hour grace period, which seems fair. I'll leave it to him to delete it when he said he would. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is back, at 66.90.73.63 (talk · contribs). He was previous at another IP, but I can't recall which one (his edit pages appear to have been deleted). Lots of offensive stuff, repeated in high volumes. Dayewalker (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has already been blocked. Tan | 39 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The who what now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an IP editor who just fills his page with slurs and profanity. He does it for a while, admins block him and delete the page. It's like he was never even here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why should we bother giving him notice? Just block, delete, and protect. It's not like he does any real damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't giving him any notice, I was just looking for a quick admin. I am toolless, in the wikipedial sense. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV might have also gotten quick action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you see this it is someone using a hardblocked open proxy hoping that it will be softblocked. Check that the IP or range is hardblocked and Do Not softblock them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[37]. Is this appropriate? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am not really seeing the issue. Is there more to this story that I should know so I can put it into context? Tiptoety ^talk 07:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The long discussion about Gabr-el and his incivility, and the long discussion on his Talk page about civility, has been archived, but It is only fair that I repay his great interest in my edits with my own interest in his edits sounds like stalking, to me. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Gabr-el. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A final warning about incivility is at User_talk:Gabr-el#Uncivility_.28again.29. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GreekParadise was blocked for 3RR [38] on the article Sarah Palin last month. Then in the same month, September he violated 3RR again, on the same article Sarah Palin, and an admin was ready to block him for 31 Hours, for incivility and nasty fighting- Admin Tznikai recognizing that there are other problems, not just 3RR, however another admin, Doug ruled that the block would be punitive and instead gave a warning saying "warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again." [39]. So this is why the issue is here for "ANI referral" per the admins comment. Recently it was ruled that GreekParadise committed the "violates again part" Yes, GreekParadise was in violation of WP:EDITWAR detailed 3RR report by admin Tiptoety. However it was also ruled once again that "block at this point would be purely punitive." [40], similarly as Doug saying block would be punitive. So we have differing opinions but the most recent ruling is that a block would be punitive and it's possible to agree with that assessment. Also the problems seem to cover much more than just edit warring for example "... you chose war over my peace offer." the user describes conflict with others as "war" outright. However all editing problems, edit wars and incivility noted by the admins were all related to Sarah Palin, so a topic ban from there would solve all issues. Won't show up in the block log, it's not punitive, it's preventive, only a few articles or a single article from millions of articles and it's duration can be reduced if editing patterns improve elsewhere. This is here per "ANI referral" comment by admin Doug in case "user violates again.". [41]. At the very least another warning should be given in light of the above. Hobartimus (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this report, but you need to give more details. You have summarised previous decisions about the user's conduct with regard to 3RR and civility, but as far as I can see, you haven't actually stated what the user has done since these decisions were made. Has there been any repetition of 3RR or incivility? Please provide diffs to back this up. Thanks Papa November (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notified of this discussion - Papa November (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent case as referred above is just a few hours old, as far as I've seen they did not do anything since that few hours. So the answer is that they did not edit "since these decisions were made" since the last decision was very recent. Hobartimus (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spotted this and find myself wondering, didnt we aquit him of being a sock before? I think this needs to be reviewed as I have no doubt they are two different people.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's still blocked, and this is probably interesting if nothing else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary indeed. Anyway, I was made aware that Bluegoblin7 was extremely upset over the block, and was in the process of contacting a CU...something to do with account being hacked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]