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

User:Worldtraveller has been harrassing me nonstop for months now, and has ramped up his attacks today with the addition of threats of further harrassment. Can someone please look into this? --InShaneee 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive70#A_petulant_and_totally_unjustified_block [1]. Here's an angry user feeling he was wronged. But hey, it's a 24h block from two months ago. The block was debated for longer than its duration back then, people objected it, but nobody seems to have reverted it. Have you asked Worldtraveller to stop posting to your talkpage? If you did, and if he feels he still wants to pursue the issue, you should kindly ask him to open an admin conduct RfC or look for arbitration. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually apologized to him (should still be on his talk page) for my error in judgement. He's actually already opened an RfC on me (which was deleted for lack of certification within the required time limit). I'm really not looking for consequences against him, I'd just like to be able to edit in peace here. --InShaneee 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply been looking for meaningful dialogue. InShaneee has responded directly to my many questions exactly once. But he's found the time and energy to accuse me of ridiculous things like harassment and personal attacks on plenty of other forums. Frankly I think an administrator who first of all either didn't understand or decided to ignore the blocking policy (I've been trying to find out which), and then persistently ignores inquiries regarding his contra-policy block, should not be an administrator at all. If InShaneee seriously thinks that being held accountable for administrative actions is threatening, then that's another reason why he is a very poor administrator. Why did he ignore my questions on his talk page weeks and weeks ago? Why is he not prepared to discuss his administrative actions? Worldtraveller 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we let bygones be bygones? Certainly, we want all editors (not just admins) to be accountable for what they do. But, bringing up issues from the past may not be very helpful. Friday (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, I totally disagree about the bygones in this case. Utterly. It's important to be ready to criticize admin actions, and it's hardly WT's fault that time has gone by while Inshaneee has stonewalled. Is that the way to get away with inappropriate admin actions now? InShaneee, WT's actions don't IMO constitute harassment at all. For myself I would actually prefer be forewarned if somebody was going to propose my deadminship, rather than have it descend from a clear sky, but YMMV. If you had been more willing to reply, which I don't see how an admin can justify not doing, WT would hardly have nagged—"harassed"—you to reply. WT has reasonable cause for what he's doing. I'm glad to see, however, that you're not accusing WT of personal attacks for criticizing your admin actions. And before somebody does start talking about personal attacks and warning WT on his page (as several people did last time WT used the phrase "terrible administrator"), I'd like to stress that there's nothing personal about criticizing somebody's use of admin tools, even in strong terms. Certainly not if they're willing to back up the criticism with facts, as WT has amply done. Admins may be freely criticized for their admin actions. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think HighinBC already responded to that better than I could. I know you're not a fan of mine, Bish, and have called for my DeSysOping more than once, but the tone here, as well as the manner in which this 'criticism' is being conducted, is what I take offense with. --InShaneee 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Me? I thought you and I got on like a house on fire, the times we've worked together (and that made me feel really bad about posting the above, but I thought it the right thing to do). Me call for your de-sysopping? You must be thinking of someone else. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

...Shoot, I may be. I apologize. I've got about a good a memory for Usernames as I do for...whatever it was I was about to compare that to. My mistake :). I reiterate, though, my problem with his tone and manner. I apologized to him because I fully accept that I was in the wrong with him, but I don't know how else I can go about resolving this than that, especially considering the length of time since this happened. --InShaneee 23:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting) InShaneee, what exactly is your problem with my tone? And how did my tone prevent you taking part in the discussion of your block that several of your fellow administrators took part in here? The problem I have with you is that you persistently and rudely ignore questions about your use of administrative tools. What I asked for, the day after I got blocked, was an explanation from you of how your block squared with policy. What I got, six weeks later, was a vague reply which gave no evidence that you understood blocking policy, or knew that your actions fell way outside it. Your failure to discuss things with your fellow administrators when you were criticised was inexcusable, and your repeated ignoring of my questions on your talk page is extremely poor conduct for an administrator.

And by the way, HighinBC basically entirely misunderstood the situation and what I was saying. Worldtraveller 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if six weeks (sounds like more) has already passed, you need to forget about it. If you want to contest his block of over a month or so ago then go to RFAr and send them a case worth looking at than complaining at AN/I. — Moe 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've actually read the start of this thread; I didn't start this discussion. Worldtraveller 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't to me [2] — Moe 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post doesn't make sense. You seemed to be saying I shouldn't have raised this issue here, when I didn't. If you read the first post in the thread, you'll see that. Worldtraveller 11:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was a disagreement about a block. InShaneee apologized. Frankly, that should be the end of the story. Apology not accepted? Ok, if really necessary an RFC could be filed... which happened and then failed due to lack of endorsement. Worldtraveller, you say you didn't start this thread... but that obviously is not the issue. You did write this. You continue to pick at this incident long after the fact. Would it be nice if InShaneee had given an explanation and/or apology that you could accept and move on from? Sure... but he isn't required to do that. Sometimes people won't accept any explanation. Giving an apology and saying 'my bad' ought to have been enough. Explaining how the mistake was made ought to have been enough. Continuing to pursue the matter for more than a month despite that is harassment. Calling someone a terrible administrator for not wanting to talk to you is harassment. Saying you will do everything you can to get someone de-sysoped is harassment. You have asked for more explanation than the paragraph InShaneee provided. He has declined to give it. You are free to consider this rude and even to make the case to others that it is rude... once. However, you are not free to continue harping on and threatening him about it day in and day out for a month. Threats, insults, continual reference to a past incident, turning Wikipedia into a battleground... it's obvious harassment and it needs to stop. Note, I haven't looked into the original block... it sounds like an overly aggressive application of BLP, which happens to be something I have been arguing against vigorously... but it isn't relevant. No matter how bad the initial action may (or may not) have been, we have procedures for dealing with disagreements that do not involve harassing, insulting, or threatening the person. Follow those procedures or you will be blocked. --CBD 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly help if you had looked into the original block, before commenting on the fallout from it. It had nothing to do with WP:BLP. I can hardly believe you are threatening me with blocking for trying fruitlessly to simply start a dialogue. Worldtraveller 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, InShaneee seems to be ignoring the questions about his conduct. If trying to get answers about what appears to be violations of policy is harassment, then I will keep on harassing. The only reason I have continued pursuing this "long after the fact" is that InShaneee completely refused to discuss it at all for six weeks. That's shocking for an administrator, and I am not prepared to let misuse of administrative tools be glossed over like that. InShaneee owes everyone an explanation, not just me, and his refusal to listen to criticism is evidence that he's really not a very good administrator at all. Worldtraveller 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're beating a dead horse, you can quit with your harrassment anytime you like. — Moe 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really supposed to be helpful input? Worldtraveller 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get blocked and you stop persisting that InShaneee be desysopped, than I have done what the above statement was supposed to do. — Moe 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that advice is helpful. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now CBD has blocked Worldtraveller for 24 hours for "Continued harassment of another user despite strong warnings. We have procedures for resolving disputes. Harassment and threats aren't part of them." And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block.

I see no harassment or threats. What I see is a seriously annoyed user being ignored by an admin who blocked him. The half-hearted "apology" that was offered is clearly not sufficient as an explanation - certainly not sufficient for Worldtraveller. (I was looking for his original complaint on Inshanee's talk page or its archive, and see that they were removed with the comment "rv troll" . A great example of the failure to establish the dialogue that Worldtraveller has been seeking.)

Here we have an almost perfect example of how not to behave as an admin - repeatedly revert an anon without discussing, then block the anon, then refuse to discuss. Apparently, if you refuse to discuss for long enough, you get away with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much afraid that Worldtraveller has now gotten exactly what he was seeking. Over two months ago he stated his intent to leave Wikipedia and, like so many before him, found that he couldn't force himself to stay away. Instead, an editor who was once almost universally lauded for his civility and his ability to work on controversial articles without revert-warring seems to have decided to instigate two separate revert wars, insult multiple editors (including myself) and quite deliberately set out to harass an admin. Why did he behave in such an uncharacteristic way? Could it be that having found himself unable to jump, he sought to antagonize the community into giving him a push? Some people seem to prefer to leave Wikipedia as a martyr rather than as a quitter. — MediaMangler 12:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

In what sense does (this this [3] or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. Is this some kind of revenge for his (entirely constructive and accurate in my view) criticisms of Wikipedia? edward (buckner) 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the opinion that this block is outrageously unjustified. WorldTraveller should probably have dropped the issue and gone on with something else, but that's not a blockable offence; I can see no sign of the supposed harrassment and threats — could someone provide diffs? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he should have dropped the issue and gone on with something else. You can follow the original thread on a copy I made here. The issue over the original block in January is that an administrator abused his position, contravened policy, and gave a dishonest reason for a block designed to win the upper hand in a content dispute. WT then got irritated by the fact that an admin who clearly knew his actions are being questioned refused to offer any kind of explanation, or to discuss. The second block was simply for so-called 'harrassment' (see below). edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan said "And then the block was extended, by HighInBC because Worldtraveller protested at the first block." Please be more accurate, it was for calling me and a few other admins fuckwits while asking to be unblocked that I gave extended the block. That is standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked. He is welcome back afterwards. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attack removed[4]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider that disparaging the contributions of another user, calling people fuckwits, and otherwise following Worldtraveller in ignoring Wikipedia's standards of civil behaviour only hurts your position. As it has his. --CBD 15:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original block seemed justified to me, only 24 hours after a month of not letting it drop. I don't think it is appropriate to make demands of another editor day after day for that long, nobody owes you a response. If that block is overtured, I ask that the 24 hours extension for personal attack stays, I have personally warned him in the past about insults, and so have others. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense 'a month of not letting it drop'. Given the concern was a matter of principle and entirely justified, and given that 'Inshanee' refused to discuss the matter and was generally high-handed about it, why should he not continue. Here, for the record, are the postings that WT made to Inshane's talk page:

• 3 March 2007
• 3 March 2007
• 3 March 2007
• 28 February 2007
• 23 February 2007
• 19 February 2007
• 14 February 2007 (ignore first section – another user)
• 13 February 2007

edward (buckner) 14:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have said that there is no evidence of threats or harassment here. I consider, "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do.", to be an incontrovertible example of both. Tell me I'm wrong. Worldtraveller has repeatedly been told to follow dispute resolution procedures. Insulting people is not part of dispute resolution. Declaring a mission to get someone de-sysoped is not part of dispute resolution. Continuing to badger someone on their talk page for a month after they have apologized and asked to be left alone is not part of dispute resolution. The relative merits of the contributions of 'user A' vs 'user B' are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. The relative merits of the initial complaint vs the apology and explanation to it are irrelevant to whether there is harassment or not. All that is relevant is whether Worldtraveller has continued to pursue a campaign of insulting and badgering InShaneee rather than following dispute resolution procedures. He has. He was repeatedly warned not to do so. He ignored those warnings and continued ([5] [6] [7]). Ergo, he was blocked.

I'm all for confronting mistakes and/or bad acts by admins, but we have procedures for doing so that don't include hounding them after they have apologized and expressed a desire to be left alone. If Worldtraveller can't accept the explanation he got from InShaneee his next step would be to request mediation, RFC, or RFAr... not continue to badger InShaneee indefinitely. --CBD 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The confusion seems to result from the belief the anybody deserves and answer from another, and has the right to demand it day after day even though he has been told it is disruptive. The fact is anyone has the right to ignore another user, and nobody is obligated to respond to the demands of another. In this diff[8] he declares his intent to continue harassing, I am satisfied with the preventative nature of this block. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. Given the issue, he should have got some sort of reply. Read the postings. edward (buckner) 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was told the correct action was to file an RFC or RFAR, but he ignored that advice and continued harassing. Dbuckner please be civil. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was he told this? edward (buckner) 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this very thread. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this very thread started on 1 March, did it not? And one of the comments that supposedly constituted 'harrassment' was made by WT on this thread. And btw please don't leave v. unpleasant and harrassing message on my talk page, thank you very much. Unbelievable. edward (buckner) 15:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you insult other editors I will go to your talk page and leave a no personal attack warning. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. Read carefully. I said the editors in question seem to be behaving like f--wits. As indeed they do. Incredibly so. edward (buckner) 15:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a personal attack. You cannot just stick "seems to me" onto an insult and sling away, that does not justify abusive language. I would not try to dance on the line of personal attacks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Let's suppose for a moment that I was wrong. People can disagree on when something crosses the line into 'harassment'. What if repeatedly badgering someone about a past incident when they have indicated a desire to be left alone is NOT harassment? Even were that the case, I had clearly said ([9]) that I believed it was... and that if WT continued doing it rather than following WP:DR he would be blocked. And thus, when he then said that if this was harassment, "then I will keep on harassing", he knew he was going to get blocked. A reasonable response to my statement that further harassment of this sort would result in a block would be to explain why refusing to follow dispute resolution procedures and instead continue hounding the target for answers is NOT harassment. Worldtraveller didn't do that (go figure). He said he was going to continue doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment. Even assuming I'm wrong about that, Worldtraveller clearly was being deliberately disruptive and doing precisely what he knew would result in himself being blocked. The subsequent 'shock' about this is thus highly disingenuous. Worldtraveller is certainly capable of 'doing the math' on 'if you continue to harass you will be blocked' + "I will keep on harassing" = block. So even if he wasn't, by some definition, harassing InShaneee Worldtraveller's behaviour was still a very bad idea. Rather than discuss the matter reasonably he insisted on doing the thing he had to know would get him blocked. And then using that inevitably as an excuse for 'shock', 'disgust', and personal attacks. However, I don't believe I was at all wrong about this being harassment. WT's inability to explain why he won't go to DR, his declaration of a vendetta to get InShaneee de-sysoped rather than to address the problem, and his deliberately provocative actions and 'outrage' at the inevitable block seem proof enough of bad action on his part. --CBD 15:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if the community tells you something is disruptive, and you keep doing it, then you are disrupting the community. It was only a 24 hour block, and I think that it was done to prevent disruption. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the entire thread on this, including all the "harassing" posts to InShanee's talk page and it's making me feel quite ill. WT has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him about that admin's actions (that affected him). This is NOT harassment, nor disruptive, and is in fact the appropriate course of action recommended at WP:DR. IMO, CBD's warning was absurd and deserved to be ignored. CBD's analysis of this (above) that WT was effectively asking to be blocked is also ridiculous. Continuing doing the things he knew I considered to be harassment doesn't mean "please block me", but "you're wrong, this is not harassment". Rather than wheel war about this, I ask CBD to please reconsider this block. I'd tend to forgive the very heated comment resulting in the extension of the block as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WT "has every right to request a response from any user, and is absolutely justified in expecting an admin to respond to him"... but that is all totally irrelevant, because it already happened. WT asked. InShaneee responded. Indeed, InShaneee said he was mistaken, apologized, and explained where he went wrong. I hope that everyone agrees that somewhere between asking once for an explanation and some bizarre extreme of responding to every comment the person makes with demands for a response (even after one is given), threats, insults, et cetera such communication passes from 'reasonable expectation' to 'blatant harassment'. Obviously, this situation falls somewhere between those two frames of reference. I believed that it had clearly crossed over into harassment and said so. Several other people agreed. Frankly, I find the it incomprehensible that people would claim things like, "You're clearly just a witless moron. How you became an admin I cannot begin to understand" and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do", are NOT harassment. As I've said, opinions on where the line is drawn apparently differ... but alot of reasonable people agree with my view that WT crossed it a good ways back. I warned him to stop or be blocked, he refused with a clear intent to continue escalating towards that bizarre extreme, so he is blocked. As to the question of unblocking... it has become irrelevant. WT scrambled his own password. Whether the block were removed now or extended to indefinite there would be no difference... he can't log in to that account any more. Worldtraveller made his own bed... every step of the way and very deliberately. --CBD 17:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think about the 24 hours I added for personal attacks[10]? Do you also think that behavior is acceptable? I would like to point of that even a reasonable request can be harassment if you make it enough times. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller has already decided to leave, even though I do hope he comes back. His essay, WP:FAIL was very thought-provoking and it's a shame that he is leaving. However, let sleeping dogs lie for the meantime. I don't see the point of this continued discussion as, after reading all this, both sides did not act especially civil so nobody should be pointing fingers. MetsFan76 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. Yet another established user blocked for defiance. I have been arguing on this board for a long time for the propriety of having patience with a user under a block; putting up with what they say; turning a blind eye even to attacks from them; even from pure vandals. Everybody seems to agree when I say stuff like that; and yet nobody seems ready to unblock such an egregious block of an established user—a very good user—as Worldtraveller? In view of the comments above, showing that there is nothing approaching consensus, or approval, for any of these blocks—the original, or the extension—I'm going to unblock. I would ask ask the original blockers to do it; but I see they have already ignored such requests, so I'll just do it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

PS; Ah, I see Geogre already did. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, it's admins such as yourself that give me faith in Wikipedia. It is very encouraging to see someone stand up for what is right. CBD, you say it's irrelevant now that WT was blocked. That is unfortunate as he was an excellent editor and while he may have been somewhat uncivil, it is clear that he is not all to blame for this fiasco. MetsFan76 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently missed the part about where he scrambled his password and can't log in whether blocked or not. As to my block being unjustified. No, no it wasn't. You call someone a "witless moron", threaten them, continue to harangue them after being asked to stop... normally you get blocked on the spot. Instead, I just warned him that I would block if he didn't stop and pointed him towards DR... he responded with a declaration that he would "keep on harassing", carried out that declaration, and I blocked as I had said I would. I find people excusing his egregiously bad behaviour as sickening as some have declared my block of him for it to be. If we are to allow users to openly declare and carry out campaigns of harassment against each other collaboration is dead. WT had made such declarations. He had to be told that it was not allowed and then blocked when he refused to heed that warning. --CBD 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I didn't "miss" anything. I have been following this since WT wrote WP:FAIL. He has been hounded by other editors who disagreed with him since. Enough so that he finally snapped. Also, I am not "excusing" his behavior. I found it to be in poor taste, however, I don't necessarily blame him. Furthermore, WT has left Wikipedia. He has dropped the issue. Isn't it time that you follow his example? If it is "irrelevant," then act like it is so. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. MetsFan76 18:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was responding to Bishonen... his rush to unblock 'missed' the fact that doing so was irrelevant since WT can't use that account now anyway. As to the rest, if you agree that his behaviour was "in poor taste"... what's the problem? I asked him to stop behaving badly. He refused. I blocked him. Should I have allowed him to continue behaving badly? Forever? At what point DO we block for bad behaviour? I thought that "witless moron" and the rest of it was a pretty good point at which to say, 'stop or else'. Should I have waited for death threats? Finally, on 'dropping the issue'... neither WT nor various others here have 'dropped' their objection to the block. They've said various things about it which seem to me clearly false (like, WT wasn't attacking / did not make threats / et cetera)... I'm correcting those mis-statements and explaining my position. If people want to move on that's fine with me, but it certainly does not seem to be the case. Thus far, people have seemed to want to claim that WT did nothing wrong. And that just isn't true. --CBD 18:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks

I unblocked. I did so because HighinBC was very much engaged in a polemic over the issue, and I felt that it was incorrect for him to block. Additionally, I felt that there was a preponderence of opinion here that a block, especially given the controversy, would be antagonistic. That's why I unblocked. It just seemed to be a hasty and incorrect action to perform a block. The angrier you are, the less you should reach for the button. Geogre 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly was not, what are you talking about? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I increased the block for personal attacks "fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"[11], not sure what polemics you are referring to, but that block was very justified, and I think your unblock is inappropriate. Even if you undid the first 24 hours for harassment the 24 hours I gave for personal attacks is clearly justified. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that people are acting without having all the facts. Geogre and Bishonen rushing to unblock... because they are apparently unaware of the fact that Worldtraveller scrambled his own password and can't log in whether unblocked or not. Geogre making false claims in his unblock summary about 'involved admins' not making judgments... I wasn't involved until I made my judgment. Claims that there is no cause for block here despite statements like "witless moron", "fuckwits", and "Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do" coming from WT. You're wrong here. He was blatantly violating civility policy and refusing to stop or pursue a less disruptive means of resolving the dispute. --CBD 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear to you that I offered to unblock without being aware that WT had scrambled his password, you're in a fog. Please consider what a block is, and what it does. How it affects users. It's not a mere enforced wikibreak, it's a slap in the face. It's a shock. It's extremely humiliating for established, productive users. It's permanent dirt in your log. Unblocking is a gesture worth making regardless of whether the person can log in or not. Please give your imagination a little more exercise, CBD. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But there was the definite appearance of f---wittedness. In England, at least, that's a gentle rebuke for dim-witted behaviour or cluelessness. Look what these guys did. WT is one of the best editors in the Wiki. I think he gets in the top ten for featured articles. We should be doing everything we can to encourage editors like this to stay. By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel of this sort, and contributes nothing at all to Wikipedia. And he engages in this highly arbitrary action against a greatly respected editor, who naturally reacts rather badly. He leaves about messages over a 1 month period, generally courteous and reasonable-minded, and the one called Shane rudely refuses to reply. After leaving two more messages, he gets blocked. Now that's really, well, I won't say the word. edward (buckner) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to take a wikibreak now, I have interrupted it to deal with this accusation of sorts. I will look in on this later, but I will leave you folks with the assurances that my limited dealings with this person weeks ago have no bearing on the personal attack block I did, and I think it is a out of line to undo a block that was given for clear violation of the WP:NPA policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA has no penalties. There is no such thing as "a personal attack block". If there was, it goes without saying that it would be inappropriate to block for an attack against yourself ("fuckwits like CBDunkerson, HighinBC and InShaneee"). This is a bad day for trigger-happy admins. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you saying that a user who has had several warnings about civility and personal attacks cannot be blocked for it? That is nonsense, this user was warned over and over to stop personal attacks, it is a blockable offense to ignore policy after several warnings. Do you really think that my name being included in the insult clouded my judgment so much that I saw an insult where there was none? That is a clear insult. The block was justified, it was not due to any sort of bias, and I resent the implication. NPA has no proscribed penalties, but it is subject to blocking. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[After edit conflicts]

I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment; all that has been shown is that, having been the subject of an unfair and unjustified block, he pursued the question with the blocking admin, hoping for justice. Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation, and that certain other admins have no more notion of justice than does a pile of bricks. He lost his temper in the face of that (being human), and said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were. In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him. How very edifying. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, tell it like it is, Mel. edward (buckner) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, that's a grossly untrue representation of the situation:

1. "said things that doubtless he shouldn't have, however true they were" - So you are endorsing as true his claim that InShaneee is a "witless moron"? If so, at this time I need to warn you about our WP:NPA policy.
2. "I have yet to see the diffs that show that WT was involved in harrassment" - If you don't consider the numerous diffs supplied to be proof then we differ on the meaning of harassment... but then you apparently think the "witless moron" comment was ok.
3. "Unfortunately he found that the blocking admin continued to behave badly by refusing to respond to his requests for explanation" - A false accusation. InShanee DID respond.
4. "In other words he was hounded into making a mistake, and was then blocked for it by the people who were hounding him." - He was blocked by me. My 'hounding' of him consisted of a single message telling him to stop harassing InShaneee and follow DR or he would be blocked. I did not hound him. Your implication that I both orchestrated (through continual hounding) and executed his block is a completely unjustified accusation.

What I'm seeing is alot of people who like Worldtraveller coming to his defense, but ignoring (or just not looking into) the fact that what he was doing WAS wrong. Unless you all really are in favor of calling people "witless moron" and publicly declaring vendettas. I mean, COME ON. He outright said that he was going to do everything in his power to get InShaneee. That's harassment. By any definition of the word. There is a point at which we have to say, "Stop". I believe he crossed it. And when I DID say "Stop", he refused. --CBD 18:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if I am acting like a moron, I would want someone to tell me. That's the only way I will learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor. Is calling someone a "witless moron" harsh? Sure. I would have said it differently but if WT thought InShaneee was acting poorly, he had every right to tell him so. He just chose his words wrong. MetsFan76 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with your actions and calling you names are different. That is why we even have guidelines on civility and personal attacks. If I felt that you acting in a moronic fashion, the proper route is for me to tell you that I didn't agree with your course...it is not to call you a witless moron. IrishGuy ^talk 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that what I just said? MetsFan76 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you were saying, then I must have interpreted it incorrectly. My apoligies. To me, it seemed as if you were excusing his actions by saying that at most he chose his words poorly. I think it was an outright personal attack and I'm not sure why so many others are excusing it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That's what I was saying. My only issue is that people are only looking at WT actions. Personally, the entire issue is done now as WT, unfortunately, left. The problem now is that HighinBC and CBD are continuing to debate this. If it's over, then let it go. MetsFan76 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is kicking a dead horse. IrishGuy ^talk 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, folks. I went to lunch. I wasn't trying to fail to respond to a question <ahem>. Ok, going through the thread above, I felt that HighinBC was getting very agitated about the issue. To me, that made him interested. I regard blocks as best done rarely and done by the disinterested. I understand how hard that can be. After all, having an opinion should be allowed. Obviously, I have my own. As for what that opinion is, it's that we simply should not block for NPA except, as the policy says, "extreme cases." Continually asking a question isn't an extreme case, and the question wasn't asked continually. Being high tempered when treated high handedly is also not an occasion for a block. I've had Ideogram, for example, pester me -- in my view -- for a long time, and I've had people come to my user talk page to tell me that they would do all they could to get me demoted. I did not block, and I am not a paragon of virtue. Rather, I combined my view with what I took as the majority view here and added those to the fact that I considered HighinBC too involved to perform the unblock. No meanness intended. Geogre 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled as to what irritation, or even involvement you are talking about. My involvement with this user is limited to simply warnings that his actions could very well lead to a block. I have no personal investment in whatever the debate about that month old block is. I don't even know what all that is about. I saw a user being warned not to be disruptive and threatening to continue, another admin blocked, I endorsed that block. To say I am to involved in a situation because I gave warnings is ridiculous. My block for personal attacks followed several warnings spanning weeks.

I don't mind being on the wrong side of consensus with an unblock review, so be it. Maybe the block for harassment was unjustified, maybe it was not. But my 24 hours block for personal attacks is an open and shut case, I ask that you return it by setting the block time to 19:35, March 4, 2007, 24 hours after the original block. I would do it myself, but that would be wheel warring. If you don't want to do this, then please be considerably more specific about my conflict of interest, or over involvement, or whatever it is that you think invalidated my block. Diffs would be nice. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

As a public service, here's a rough timeline of events. For people unfamiliar with the case to better judge the merits of the various claims of who failed to do what when. May be incomplete, I haven't followed the events too closely myself.

• 1st RfC about InShaneee filed, independent issue: 1 November
• First attempted closure of RfC: 29 December
• Contentious block of Worldtraveller by InShaneee 2 January
• First complaint by Worldtraveller on ANI: 3 January
• InShaneee's only immediate response after being criticised by several admins on the noticeboard: "governing the lesser Wikipedians"
• Second attempt at closing first RfC: 10 January [12]
• Attempt at discussion by Worldtraveller on InShaneee's talk. Meeting with silence. Repeated attempts over several weeks, with WT becoming increasingly aggressive at InShaneee's failure to respond, finally leading to downright insults. Escalating from 3 January to 12 February
• Renewed attempt at closing first RfC: 12 February
• 2nd RfC filed by Worldtraveller: 14 February
• InShaneee apologising to WT: 19 February. WT not satisfied with the apology, keeps criticising InShaneee harshly
• First complaint by InShaneee on ANI: 19 February [13]
• Second complaint by InShaneee on AN: 1 March

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the summary. As it happens, I saw that debate at the time but didn't pay attention to who the parties were and didn't realize it was connected. My brief synopsis would be; InShaneee was wrong two months ago, Worldtraveller is wrong now. Seriously, a two month (not one as I thought) vendetta? Not harassment? How can anyone seriously claim that continual haranguing of another user for two months is something we should encourage. We have dispute resolution procedures precisely to prevent that sort of long term inter-personal conflict. --CBD 19:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time shouldn't be a factor here. What's wrong is wrong. There's no statute of limitations here. InShaneee was wrong then, WT is wrong now. Whatever the case, in the past two months, they both acted poorly. MetsFan76 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except of course that the longer harassment goes on the bigger a problem it is. You say Worldtraveller acted poorly. I said that yesterday and told him to stop. He refused so I blocked him. Unless you think I should have allowed him to continue acting poorly, at this point I'm not really sure what it is about my action that you dispute. --CBD 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with your actions is that you are basically the only now making an issue about this. The horse is dead, stop kicking it. MetsFan76 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight - he was originally blocked for "harassment" because he kept trying to enter into a dialogue about the InShaneee's block in January, rather than either letting it go or escalating the dispute resolution? And then his block was doubled because (a) he was called someone a "witless moron" over a month ago (and 3 weeks after he first asked for an explanation) and (b) he lashed out when smacked with the first block? I am so cross I can barely type. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitting our selves on the head with a hammer

Worldtraveller did nothing to merit a block - he was demanding accountability of an admin who blew him off for weeks. His actions are a good thing. Admins have a duty to answer for themselves when they make blocks in error. Is this is obvious to everyone, or do we need another 1000 words of official policy.

Blocking our best editors for questionable reasons is rather like hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer to cure a headache. --Duk 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh... "His actions were a good thing". Of course... we should call everyone "witless moron" and "fuckwit". Because that'll be beneficial to the encyclopedia. How could I have missed it? :]

Seeking accountability is a good thing... if done through the proper dispute resolution procedures. Worldtraveller was urged to do so. He refused and insisted on attacks, threats, and harassment instead. That was not a good thing and it absolutely was deserving of a block. Yes, InShaneee's block was wrong. However, that does not give Worldtraveller license to behave as badly as he likes for as long as he likes. Wikipedia will be better off when people realize that BOTH 'executive' and 'personal' accountability are important. --CBD 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBD, do you think you are acting civil right now? The people who this really affects (WT and InShaneee) have not said a word for quite some time (unless I missed something). Why don't you just drop it? There is no need for you to defend your actions. MetsFan76 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't? Oh, my mistake. I thought people were calling me a "fuckwit", "twit", "ignoramus", who made an "outrageously unjustified", "absurd", "ridiculous", "trigger-happy" block. Good to know that there is 'no need to defend my actions'. I'd somehow gotten a different impression. :]

Perhaps some of these other people could stop calling me names and insulting me to help show how this is a dropped matter that I don't need to clarify my position on? Because... you know if I don't respond apparently that would make me a "terrible administrator" and a "witless moron". --CBD 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sticks and stones......" MetsFan76 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now HighInBC has blocked one of the people defending WT... This is getting sillier and sillier, more and more hysterical — and less and less pleasant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Dbuckner

I see that HighInBC has now also blocked Dbuckner for 24 hours for personal attacks made in the above thread and continuing on Dbuckner's userpage. The user has argued against the block but has not posted an unblock request to date, and has instead e-mailed the blocking administrator. I find much of the language of Dbuckner's comments to be highly unnecessary, but am troubled by the concept of blocking a serious content contributor based in part on comments made in response to an administrator's comments on the user's own userpage. I post the matter here for comment. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see HighInBC has opened a separate thread at the bottom of this page. I'll copy this there so discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing the blocking admin is the *suggested procedure*, not that it actually ever works. We should be *free* to criticize admins use of their tools without getting blocked. Wjhonson 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point

In all this back and forth, the original question has got lost. What started all this was InShaneee, whether through stupidity or malice, ignoring policy and then refusing to be held accountable for his behaviour. I presume that CBDunkerson and HighinBC think that's fine. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense knows it's not fine. Why did he lie in his original block summary? Why did he fail to comment when his actions were criticised? Why did he fail to engage in any direct dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Why did he complain about his 'harassment' here instead of engaging in dialogue with his alleged 'harasser'? Is he pleased with himself about the way this has turned out? Has his behaviour met the standards expected of an administrator? 81.179.115.188 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are largely correct, 81, but, since Inshanee has said that he's going to take a break from blocking people, the hone has gone off the point somewhat. Unless there is an RFAR to follow, I'm not sure what more can be done. If an RFAR does follow, there will be time to force the matters into the light. Geogre 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an RFAR, 81. RFC's are useless timesinks when it comes to questioning someone's use of the tools. Just my opinion. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have been considering opening an RFAR myself over this whole sordid mess. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that InShaneee has in the past unblocked himself after having been blocked for 3RR - a huge breach of WP:BP: [14]. I think he doesn't believe that policy applies to him. RfAr seems like the way to go. WP:VP specifically notes that people have lost their adminship for unblocking themselves. 81.179.115.188 08:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moriori himself attempted to reverse the block you cite, since he acknowledged that 3RR was not violated. He unblocked InShanee (one less e in the name) by mistake. Furthermore, Moriori was involved in an edit dispute with InShaneee, so he really shouldn't have blocked him at all. — MediaMangler 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does WP:BP#Unblocking (Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves...but should absolutely not do so unless they were autoblocked as a result of a block on some other user) somehow fail to apply? 81.179.115.188 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the greater issue of whether further proceedings about InShaneee are appropriate; just a note on that self-unblock: You didn't get the point. It looks bad on the surface, but it was an absolutely legitimate IAR application. The other admin had clearly meant to unblock InShaneee, but due to a misspelling had unblocked a different account instead. InShaneee, instead of going through another {unblock} request, took the matter in his own hand and corrected this obvious technical mistake, saving everybody time and work. Everybody was then duly notified and everybody could see that it was all following the intentions of the unblocker. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous... you all want to bring out the pitchforks and hang someone for a single mistaken block that was, in fact, apologized for? I would dearly love to see this brought to ArbCom; I think this gang-bullying needs to be exposed. - Merzbow 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted because southphilly moved it up. I assume to escape administrator attention.

Thread retitled from "WP:OWN and a wikiproject about to get nasty".

I've been watching the debate here to see if it is suitable for the project to have a co-ordinator (who if you look at the history seems to be have just appointed himself after minimum consultancy and many people saying the post was unrequired). As a wikipedian of good standing, I wished to comment about the matter. However it seems that I don't have the right to do so according to a sole editor (not the same person as the co-ordinator). My position on this is very clear, all wikiprojects by their very nature should be inclusive - any attempt to say that wikipedians of good standing cannot imput into their development of a project that affects the community should be stamped on and stamped on hard. Projects do not exist outside of the regular norms of the community and should not be allowed to try and enforce guidelines that are not in line with the rest of the community.

I can see that this is about to get nasty and see the good ship HMS revertwar appearing on the horizon, can an admin pop across and have a look. --Fredrick day 20:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen more and more cases of Wikprojects trying to OWN articles. This needs to be addressed and stopped. Corvus cornix 21:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this isn't about a WP trying to own an article, it's about a user (allegedly) trying to own a WP. I do agree with your point, but it's not entirely relevant here :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has moved on - the WP:OWN issues are still there and the same editor has now decided that only certain wikipedians areenfranchised. This is complete bollocks, wikiprojects do not get to opt out of community input. --Fredrick day 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is getting ridiculous. Southphilly, realising that everyone else is in favour of scrapping a coordinator and my cleanup edits to the page, has taken to simply reverting the page without edit summaries (previously he kept insisting I needed to hold a vote on every change I wanted to make). I encourage anyone reading this to read the talkpage and notice my reaching of consensus of both issues with a variety of editors to that page: Southphilly instead accused me of vandalism, and has repeatedly reverted me, even as everyone else was expressing support for what I had done. Until Evrik took his wikibreak, he was also doing the same thing, and has also blatently canvassed people against me and other editors. I am finding this very wearing, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator could please take a good look at this, as not only I, but three other editors have expressed their concerns that evrik and Southphilly are trying to own the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Awards

Action needs to be taken on this. See here for background. Evrik has now returned and he and southphilly are tagteaming each other in reverting against consensus. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dev920 has tried to hijack the WikiProject and is trying to force through the outcome she wants. She is being disruptive and is LYING. She is the one who is being harmful. --South Philly 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be protected. --South Philly 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm lying? Who is accusing editors of vandalism for reverting the page to the version agreed by all editors except you? Really, if anyone thinks I'm lying, go read the talkpage, see all the editors lining up to disprove Southphilly's assertion. Look through the history, note the point at which southphilly realised that if he called for a vote he would lose it and took to reverting without explanation, or accusing editors of vandalism. Who's lying? It sure ain't me, it ain't Fredrick, it isn't Kathryn, or thuglas, or Michael, or WJBscribe, or any other editor who has supported my edits. Note that editing the page at any way Southphilly doesn't like is "hijacking", even though everyone else supports - WP:OWN anyone? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean at the right version? the one where you try and exclude most wikipedians from having a say? --Fredrick day 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People are welcome to comment, but otherwise its open to vote stacking. --South Philly 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ WikiProject Council or WP:Mediation guys. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why? it's a straight forward WP:OWN - the actual co-ordinator bit is just the backdrop - the fundemental issue is an editor trying to remove/degrade the comments of others. --Fredrick day 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. It's a project for putting little decorations on other people's userpages -- I can only assume the purpose of this is to increase general morale and 'wikilove' -- and you're quibbling about who will be in charge? Give each other some awards, forget your concern for your own titles, eliminate the various levels of membership, and then get to the business of increasing wikilove. If you find this an important goal, pursue it; it certainly does not require a coordinator. Internal bickering wastes the community's time and distracts from your project's purpose. — Dan | talk 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go tell that to southphilly and evrik. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would remove the levels of membership, as everyone agrees with you - except southphilly and evrik, who keep putting it back against consensus, along with teh coordinator stuff and attenpts to restrict voting to members. Really, I think it's stupid too, but that isn't stopping them crying vandal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no interest in who is in charge or the project - I only became involved because I queried the WP:OWN practices on the page. --Fredrick day 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Kirill below)Can I please ask an administrator to actually review the talkpage in question. Saying " This is stupid, just remove the membership" is all very well, but one may notice that there is a bloody-minded determination on the part of southphilly and evrik to prevent me from doing just that. If I revert one more time to the consensus version (read the page and one will find I am right) I will be breaking 3RR, and I'm fed up with southphilly just going "no, it's vandalism", even when I point out that three other people at least agree with me against southphilly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Far be it from me to criticize the idea of coordinators in general (although, honestly, why a twenty-member project that doesn't appear to actually do anything needs one, I don't know), but the behavior here is quite unseemly. WikiProjects should not try to fight the community at large; if people are concerned enough about your behavior to actively complain, it's a pretty good sign that you're doing something wrong. Trying to silence such criticism, or to insist that non-members (a silly distinction, in any case) have no voice, is utterly inappropriate. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note requesting a mediation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dev920 objected to my role with the Barnstars. She acted boldly and removed me. A poll was put up by South Philly, Dev920 modified the poll. The whole things has gone back and forth. I want to participate, but I'm not sure what my role here is. --evrik ^(talk) 18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what to do about this edit here. I came back from the weekend to find the edit war going on. Really, I think that Dev920 started the whole thing with this edit. I am perfectly happy to abide by the results of the poll, but think that leaving that section off pensing the resolution of the poll rewards her agressive behaviour. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. The original discussion, in which I had no part, made it utterly clear that the role of a coordinator was a opposed, and furthermore, when southphilly put evrik forward as a candidate, every subsequent editor opposed. Evrik appointed himself coordinator anyway. That wasn't being bold, that was upholding consensus. However, after an edit war, southphilly tried to get around my quite reasonable assertion that the coordinator section main page beared absolutely no relation to the discussion it was based on by holding yet another poll. My change of the poll was also to reflect objections that the poll was closed to non-members, even though it affects everyone who ever receives an award. If Evrik wants to participate, he can contribute to discussions like every other normal member instead of reverting everything he doesn't like. I, and everyone else, have no objection to that, what we object to are his attempts to rule the project. (accusing me of "hijacking" for the crime of actually editing? Please.) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not exactly true, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument. --evrik ^(talk) 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm certainly not seeing any facts from you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Evrik was nominated, and he accepted. He was doing the job anyway and everyone on the wikiproject was fine with it. Dev920 didnt like the way he was running things so she joined the wikiproject and removed him as coordinator without asking anyone. I can site the relevant links if you want me to ... is that proof enough? --South Philly 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links, relevant links, now, where is that most relevant link? Oh yeah, the original discussion about having a coordinator. Now, who was it who nominated evrik? Oh yeah, you. And who didn't want him? Oh yeah, everyone else. Now, unless you want to cite some magical link where some secret poll was held that confirmed that yes, we needed a coordinator, and yes, thet coordinator should be evrik, there's nothing much more to cite than that. The current poll is currently 8-1(you) against evrik remaining coordinator. But if you have other "proof", please, post it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southphilly has reverted here and here against consensus, now not only that of the project, but also of the consensus here. Has he broken 3RR?

Looking back over this discussion, I'm seeing me posting links of all over the place and encouraging everyone to read the page. Evrik and southphilly, however, keep accusing me of lying, of telling half-truths, and saying that they have proof of this. Yet it never seems to show up. I wonder why. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Philly has taken it upon himself to repeatedly remove votes from the open poll to the "comments" section.[15],[16],[17]. I find this behavior most unacceptable, and disruptive.Proabivouac 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is... odd. I respectfully suggest to all parties involved that perspective has been lost, and that they should pause to reflect upon 1) what the purpose of this WikiProject is, and 2) how it benefits the encyclopedia. Personally, I see no need for any sort of bureaucracy here, with so few participants, and it seems to me that rules and procedures are being developed for, essentially, their own sake, which is not a good thing. The amount of discussion about who is a member of which category of members, and what that category means, is puzzling, at best. I would even say it's against the wiki philosophy, and suggest a straightforward list of participants until and unless some need for a bureaucracy is clearly shown -- but again, personal opinion. However... attempting to exclude participation by non-members is a serious problem, and perhaps an indication that the project's lost its way. All good-faith editors' contributions are of equal merit, in theory -- any structure that discounts opinions presented in good faith because those editors are "outsiders" is cliquish and reprehensible. I also agree with Proabivouac that removing others' comments is not acceptable behavior. Shimeru 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to address the comments about the size of the WP and the need for an admin. It's the the project size, but the scope of the work. The pages were created to try and make some order of the WP:BS anarchy, and the WikiProject was created to try and help build consensus and mediate disputes. I think that without some order, those pages will become anarchic and their utility to the community will be lessened. --evrik ^(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. But... honestly, how do you think appointing yourself coordinator has helped to build consensus or mediate disputes? It seems rather to have caused disputes. I know these questions may sound arch, but they're meant as real questions: Exactly how have you been able to advance the project or the encyclopedia by acting as "coordinator"? And what tradeoff setbacks, if any, do you see have been made? Shimeru 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?

Trying to look at this objectively, despite what Dev920 says, there was a general agreement that some coordination was needed, but there was no consensus on how to do this. I was nominated to coordinate here, which I then accepted. I was also listed as the coordinator – and there was no objection for a couple weeks. Is that consensus?

The next month, Dev920 summarily removes me. From there that page has gone back and forth about whether or not there is a coordinator.

A poll was started, and then that too has gone back and forth.

There has been a lot of opinion about this whole thing, but there has been almost no recitation of policy. So I have five questions.

1. Is there a policy about how a wikiproject determines who will lead or guide it (besides consensus)?
2. Is consensus achieved from lack of opposition? If so, how long does a question have to sit?
3. Is there a policy on the removal of such a person?
4. Is there a policy about polling people?
5. Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll?

I thought I was nominated to be coordinator, and was WP:AGF. My concern at this point is that rather than build consensus among the project members, Dev920 just acted, without even building consensus. If you look at the history, Dev920’s consensus to act was an agreement of two users. This started over disagreements on how two awards were handled. It should be obvious that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking, and disagree with Dev920 – but I’d like to get some objective answers to the five questions listed above.

Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a clear example of WP:CREEP, with some incivility and bad assumption? DanBeale 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that I agree with South Philly about process and vote stacking - are you accusing editors of acting improperly in saying that the role of co-ordinator should be removed? why are they stacking votes? Why do you feel that normal wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this project? You accept that it is standard wikipedia process that ANY editor can have a say about a project?

You ask one really one relevent question:

Is there a policy about who can vote in a poll? the answer is summed up in one sentence "wikipedia, the encylopedia anyone can edit". People get confused what wikiprojects are, they are just another set of community pages with a specific function, they work by the agreement of the those who share the goals of the wikiproject. However this is sometimes confused to mean that the people within the project have some special powers over the project pages - they don't. Those are community pages and thus South philly has ZERO authority to try and prevent any wikipedian in good standing, offering suggestions or saying "no this post of co-ordinator is not required". Membership of a project might be desirable to some but it is NOT required for a wikipedian to comment, offer suggestions or take part in any discussion that impact on wikipedia policy or process. Any attempts to prevent wikipedians having their say will be strongly resisted - the concept that only special people get to vote seems to me to against the spirit of the community (ARBCOM occupies a different space and purpose so the same does not apply there), As for removing the post - well the community is quite clearly saying "no it's unrequired" - that's all the policy that is needed. --Fredrick day 21:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsensical. This project should either shape up or be deleted. Just my opinion, I just joined because I like the barnstars but was wary due to the nonsense above. You would think that WikiProject Coordinator was something to be bestowed a place of honor on one's resume. Heh.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki. We don't have coordinators. If someone takes a key role in something it is usually because they have unceremoniously taken on a huge responsibility, and continue in the role because they have the trust of the community. They often ask similarly trusted people to help them in their efforts. These people rarely throw their weight around (and if so, usually for a very good reason) and don't claim any special rights or powers. They operate under the consensus guidelines. They are basically grunts with respect. I distrust anyone who claims to coordinate anything. I admire people who quietly get work done and don't claim any special role. So I'd suggest that this coordinator battle be solved by abandoning the entire idea of a coordinator. -- Samuel Wantman 08:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Samuel. Kirill is coordinator for WikiProject Military history because he puts in a lot of work; acknowledging his contributions with a title is the least we can do. From reading this thread, I'm not clear about what they've done to make this WikiProject a success. How about they simply stop this fighting & just make some contributions? -- llywrch 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST is huge. They essentially want someone to... um, blame if something goes wrong. But the best coordinator (or administrator, or bureaucrat, or anything) is the one that rarely, if ever, pulls rank, as Samuel indicates above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dev920 has now taken over de facto control of the wikiproject by ousting Evrik. --South Philly 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...right. Because evrik isn't posting on the awards page right now, and didn't just archive two awards. Also, I "control" the project because evrik allegedly isn't there, even though Smomo just rubbished my proposed intro and wrote another one which I agreed is better? You have serious power issues, mate. Stop making yourself look silly. 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to report persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik at Talk:Safavid Dynasty. Here are the instances with diff links:

• "What the hell are you talking about?!", "What's wrong with you?!", "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason...", etc. at [18]. I warned the user and said that I will ignore his attack for now [19].
• After the first warning, User:Tajik again: "this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV" [20] and for the second time, I warned the user kindly [21]
• Another attack: "do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong"" [22]
• In my response to my reference to precise quote from Friedrich Nietzshe unrelated to the user [23], the response and blackmail warnings from User:Tajik were at [24]:

• "I ask you for the last time to stop lying",
• "You also continue your lie",
• "So please stop to continue your lies and I once again remind you to watch WP:CIVIL",
• "So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying",
• "The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all"
• "you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text"

Please, help to address the issue. I have exhausted all available means to convince him to stop attacking me. Atabek 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Those look a lot like people in serious disagreement, not personal attacks. I'm sure things are hot, but the best solution is probably the mediation cabal. You need referees and umpires, and not really anything administrative, from what you've posted. Geogre 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But lack of administrative action would essentially encourage such attacks. It becomes hard to discuss anything in civil manner on talk pages, when one of the parties is constantly trying to attack you like above. Atabek 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were not personal attacks, but facts. I had warned Atabek before not to repeat his false claims about me. Yet, he ignored my advice and continued to repead those false claims. And this is exactly the definition of "lying". Reporting these minor comments and purposely interpreting them as "personal attacks" is just another attempt by User:Atabek to provocate me and to give me a bad name. keeping in mind that he himself is under constant watch by admins, and that he is known for POV pushes, in part Turkish-nationalist ideology, and especially some kind of anti-Armenian sentiments, I do not think that he is in any position to critisize others. Just take a look at this comment: [25] Also take a look at this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision. User:Atabek is also known for using sock-puppets in Wikipedia in order to falsify information and to push for POV: [26].

Tājik 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope the administrators can see now that the negligence and leniency only encourages the attacker. Tajik, you should not talk much accusing me of allegedly "anti-Armenian sentiments", unless you want to be dragged into the relevant ArbCom case and present your "evidence" there. Meanwhile, I will pursue the case with your personal attacks until the justice is served, just like it is and should be served with any of us. Atabek 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The George Reeves Vandal/BoxingWear person has been vandalising my user talk page ever since I protected his favorite vandalism target, the talk page of Rocky Marciano. Every one of his IPs which does not begin with 66.99 or 64.107 can be reliably blocked as an open proxy. If anyone wants to help I'd sure appreciate it.

Bigger issue: does anyone have any ideas on how to deal with this persistent pest? He reserves his worst abuse for the people who try to reason with him, so beware. He edits from the Chicago Public Library and Triton College (that's where he's at tonight, at least until they kick him out). Antandrus (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the public library but have you tried sending a note to Triton? JoshuaZ 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it's a pain while it's happening, but think of it as a service to the project - the more open proxies we find and block, the better off we are :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking. He can help us smoke 'em out. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, would people please keep an eye open for his persistent returns to the noticeboard, sneakily vandalising this section itself? Thanks much, Antandrus (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across User:Death Star III at GAC, Check contribs. Basically this user has set up a fake user page and has been going around the wiki for some time creating bogus article (which should all be deleted) and making bogus GA nominations. Far as I can tell he has only been warned once. Something needs to be done about this user immediately, it is clear they are here to disrupt. They should be blocked indefinitely.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could be wrong but that is my impression with recent edit summaries like "haha vandalized!" And nominations to GAC that are blatantly copyvios or one paragraph long. Perhaps I am wrong.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you expressed your concerns to the editor? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a notice on the users talk page about an AfD discussion, perhaps I acted prematurely. Just had some bad Wiki times lately I guess. Perhaps you could leave this thread open in case, there are some pretty blatant vandal edits in the history, could just be a kid based on an article created about a fifth grade teacher (deleted this morning) but the edits to the Enron stuff speak otherwise.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually deleted the article about the 5th grade teacher. It appeared as it was good faith (but nonetheless obvious speedy material). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, the contrib history looks really weird, almost torn between being a vandal and being a serious contributor. It's odd. I am going to post a message on the user's talk page. Perhaps they will respond.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a message on the user's talk page. Can their talk page be deleted if it isn't corrected? I am not really sure how that works, the guidelines and such seem a bit ambiguous (on purpose I assume to leave plenty of leeway for discretion) The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general nor have they been a member since 2006 far as I can tell by their contrib history. Is there a way to verify that?

In the meantime I nominated one article Hiatus Road for deletion and tagged a copyvio Timeline of Plantation, Florida for speedy.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The user, however is obviously not a brigadier general" - He's clearly not a dark lord of the sith, or an ageless immortal, either. --Random832 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faking credentials isn't a violation of any wikipeda rule I can find. It's a violation of the communities trust... and thats different. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to publicly apoligize for the false information on my userpage i would also like to apoligize for vandalizing pages. i hope you can forgive me and welcome me back to wikipedia. I can understand you deleting Ilene Miller though please don't delete Hiatus Road and Timeline of Plantation, Florida --Death Star III 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is adequately trying to reform. Death Star: The Hiatus Road article is up for community discussion, which you can join in, follow the link on the article's page. I think this thread can probably be closed. Thanks for your help folks, sorry if I jumped the gun, better safe than sorry I guess. As for the credential thing, yeah I kinda thought so. Hahaha, yeah he is obviously not a Sith Lord, but those can't be claimed as actual credentials.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is borderline vandalism going on at Europe for several days now, with a problem editor who repeatedly blanks out the Norwegian flag with the listings of Svalbard and Jan Mayen from the list of regions within Europe, but refuses to account for this action on the discussion. In his latest edit summary, he said there is no need for him to discuss or explain his views because he is simply right and all the editors who revert him are wrong, so with one party refusing to come to the table for discussion, the edit war just drags on and on. What else can be done? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am restoring this section from archive, because it was swept under the rug on the same day without an adequate resolution. The contant blanking of Svalbard continues at Europe with sockpuppet accounts refusing to discuss one word, even though the page had to be protected to stop all the IP blanking. Please some admin look into this

and don't just try to pass the buck to a different burocratic office. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it borderline? There's no justification for that, it seems to me. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I say borderline because he may have some content dispute, but he isn't making it on the discussion page. I had to do my own investigation, and found the same editor has proposed the article Svalbard and Jan Mayen for a deletion, so that sems to afford some clues, but when I asked him (via edit summary) to wait for the outcome of that afd, he replied (via edit summary) that it was "irrelevant"... As best as I can piece together from his summaries, his beef seems to be that because Norway considers them sovereign and fully integrated parts of Norway, there is no need to mention them at all in a list of geographic areas found within Europe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it seems to be a WP:3RR violation. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have probably also been guilty of breaking 3RR myself in reverting him, because it seems vandalism and not the proper way to make his point by avoiding discussion or explanation. What I really want is to somehow get him to discuss the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post a 3RR warning and if he continues, go to WP:AN3. Or maybe an admin will come around soon and help you. Maybe a warning will encourage him to start talking. Xiner (talk, email) 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if he's deleting the Norway flag, it may be considered vandalism as well as a content dispute. Xiner (talk, email) 01:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A less attractive but possibly necessary alternative is to seek full protection at WP:RFPP, since it's an edit war involving registered users. Xiner (talk, email) 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the only Norway flag he is really deleting is the little one identifying who own the territory, along with the listing of the territory... It's not like he is deleting all of the Norway flags on the page...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, this may be a candidate for WP:LEW. --Random832 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I became involved in this fairly recently, but here is what I have seen. The problem is with User:Dagnabit, who has removed or altered a number of references to the Svalbard and Jan Mayen article, including this and this. While some changes (such as [27] this) may have been justified, the bulk of them are not, as they specifically refer to the ISO designation (and UN identifier) Svalbard and Jan Mayen, and linking to the two separate articles is incorrect. In the case of the Europe article, it is a content question whether there should be a separate entry for "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" on the table, but Dagnabit appears to have refused to engage in any constructive conversation, merely claiming everything to be "nonsense", "vandalism", etc. Recently identical reversions (with incorrect "minor" designations and "vandalism" summaries) have been taken up by anonymous IP addresses, with the obvious implications. The article appears to have been recently sprotected by User:Gnangarra, but the last reversion was by new user User:Notable sam, a single-edit account created 4 days ago, and thus just able to bypass the s-protection. I don't think full protection is needed right now, although it will be interesting to see if any other "sleeper" accounts show up.

If you look at the Svalbard history, this appears to be an ongoing editorial battle by the same individual, previous using accounts named User:Tapir2001 (the signature phrase "stop making up facts"). Any admins considering this may also want to view the editing interests and user page style of User:TexasWalkerRanger - David Oberst 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he also failed to delete the article where all this is explained, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, but does not seem inclined to give up the struggle... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reported User:Notable sam at 3RR - presumably a sock of User:Dagnabit. - David Oberst 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new user I've been trying to WP:ADOPT and steer the right way (somewhat unsuccessfully). The user has a history of inappropriate edits, but is not a vandal-only account. Recently I noticed this diff. I'm not quite sure if it should just have gone to AIV or if someone else should have a word with him. —dgies^t_c 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I recall a report on this user on this page previously, too. x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was, regarding his userpage and signature, I believe. A similar issue. As to the matter at hand... mm, I don't know. From a look at his contributions, his behavior seems to have gotten a little better, but at the same time, I don't know whether he's ever made any useful contributions. Not sure I'd write him off just yet. Will drop him a note. Shimeru 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His behavior hasn't really improved. We told him to make more article space edits if he wanted to improve, but he hasn't. He continues to try to use Wikipedia as a social networking site and hub for his non-notable anti-child porn organization. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, so it seems. Well, given his subsequent response to the messages, I have to support the block. Doesn't look like he's taking things very seriously at all. Shimeru 22:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just nominating it for MfD and I saw it already went through one a few weeks ago for much the same nonsense. I have tagged as CSD G4. —dgies^t_c 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's already been blocked indefinitely for continued disruption, and the user page was deleted for containing personal information, so I imagine we're done here. --Coredesat 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had blocked Rajsingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours yesterday following the incident reported here by User:Netmonger (see the report). Today, using his sockpuppet account DoDoBirds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he attacked me personally before attacking Jimbo Wales on our talk pages. I immediately blocked DoDo and extended Rajsingam block to indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I've been contacted lately by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam claiming he is the owner of both above-mentioned accounts and that he was betrayed by 2 of his friends with whom he shared the password of his accounts. After further explanations i decided to unblock the main account User:Rajsingam after being assured that it won't happen again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a userbox [28] here from user:Embargo. It appears as though the version i removed was vandalized (I am not too sure). Now, Embargo is claiming that I have vandalized his page, and several other things. I just wanted to make sure that my actions were appropriate to remove the version of the userbox listed above. If it was innapropriate in the eyes of other admin, I will have no issue apolagizing to him however, I feel anything that states, that they support the massacre of another people is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actualy made a mistake above [29] is the diff where I removed the userbox, the one above shows the userbox before I removed it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Er... yes, that certainly seems like an inapppropriate userbox. I think you did the right thing. I'd say you might have requested its removal, first, but judging by his talk page, that's been tried unsuccessfully... several times. Shimeru 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was previously a fairly long discussion about User:Embargo's userbox... I have no idea what the final consensus was, but I believe most had accepted his most recent version. --Onorem 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he changed it back after I removed the bad version. The version I removed stated, "This user supports Hezbolla to israelli massacres." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The version that reads "This user supports [[Hezbollah|resistance]] to [[Israeli]] [[massacres|hostilities]]."? Really? Strange. Shimeru 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was just trying to provide some background for any interested. And you had asked on his userpage for a discussion that said his userbox could stay. The "bad version" had been altered in this edit earlier today. I'm assuming that Embargo didn't notice the changes when he reverted the rest of the vandalism. --Onorem 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is what I was looking for. I have no issue with the current revision. Thanks for the background, much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do, though. If the content is unacceptable in the open, then it's unacceptable when it's "hidden" behind pipes, too. I'd think this would be pretty obvious; I mean, nobody would support a userbox that read something like "This user thinks <insert ethnic group> are [[rape|really]] [[murder|nice]] [[evil|people]]". Would they? Shimeru 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it and on this subject, User:TheKaplan has restored "Hezbollah = Murder Incorporated" after removal as per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive73#User:Embargo

I have aksed him to remove it. It appears as though his intentions of having it there are to Make a point per this quote ("And I probably would have cleaned this one out with all the other superfluous ones, but since someone tried to remove it") located right above it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disturbed by Embargo's edit summary, reverting Chrislk02's removal of hostile material here : "Garbage..."??? that can't be civil at all. ThuranX 23:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok guys w/ the current version? Shall we move on or do you still have some things to say? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as above. If there's a consensus that says supporting Hezbollah against Israeli "massacres" is okay (and that is what the current version says, although covertly), then fine -- but in that case, I fail to see why the "Hezbollah = Murder" userbox is any worse. Personally, I don't care for either side in the conflict, but I don't think we should allow one of these messages and not the other -- that would appear to be taking sides. If stating a political view in terms of "X is murdering people" is okay, both boxes are okay. If not, both are not. Shimeru 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i've never supported any of the versions myself (see current and archived Embargo's user page). However, and after lenghty discussions at their talk page and at a previous ANI thread, there seemed that the issue has been resolved. Otherwise, i'll be supporting the immediate removal of all these userboxes which smell politics. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from above, there is a second issue here, unrelated to the MTG sets. Scumbag (talk · contribs) has declared that he has no intention of following WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:WAF, or WP:FICT. When I noted this, I went through his contribs for articles that failed these policies and guidelines, to fix them. Examples include Ravnica, Cybran Nation, Tiberium, Aeon Illuminate, and Forced Evolutionary Virus, all articles written as though they were real things, with little reference to the real world and the only "references" being vague comments to the effect of "I took this from the game". Scumbag has taken this as some sort of vendetta on my part. I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Christ. I've blocked him. This is, of course, open to review, but I think it's important to take a firm stance here and tell him that, actually, we are going to follow WP:ATT and WP:WAF. Edit warring is one thing, but edit warring when you've admitted that you don't give a monkey's toss about policy is another. – Steel 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that, I support the block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addendum, you might want to add WP:OR to the list of things he doesn't feel are valid. - J Greb 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with 24h block, would support longer block in case of any further edits made pursuant to his own "policies". Sandstein 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS, WP:OR, and something else were merged into WP:ATT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Sometimes I disagree with policy, but that's because (1) keeping up with policy can be a full-time job in itself, so I just use common sense, & (2) if I've made a serious mistake, I assume someone will follow behind me & fix things -- just like people correct my typos & misspellings. Saying that I'm going to take on the Wikipedia community over disagreement about various policy (rather than explain why I think they are wrong), is not helping the project; it's just being a troublemaker for its own sake. -- llywrch 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, am I the only one who questions the appropriateness of Scumbag's username? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's blockable as a sexual reference. The term has been watered-down somewhat in contemporary usage, but back in the '60s and '70s it was most commonly used as a proxy for the term condom.[30] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is fine - what's with the user name witchhunts recently? I object to Hit bull, win steak, as it incites animal violence. I also object to 'Newyorkbrad' as New York is where the September 11th attacks took place, and "brad" could stand for "Bombed, Razed And Destroyed", so it's clearly laughing about 9/11. Evil. Lunacy aside, Scumbag's cruftacular OR contributions are not a good thing. Neil (not Proto ►) 10:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to look at the dictionary definition in my link? It's not like this is a dead issue; the NY Times just got a big flood of complaints last year after they used it as an answer in their crossword puzzle.[31] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bull is right. In Bull Durham, if you hit the bull beyond the wall at the DAP (Durham Athletic Park), you get a free steak. "Scumbag" is a pejorative at best and a profanity most commonly. Even though it no longer has condom as its primary meaning, it is still, even in popular imagination, sexual profanation. Imagine "douchebag" as a user name. Geogre 13:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe it's more offensive in the US than in the UK, where it's a mild insult (like calling someone a jerk). Neil (not Proto ►) 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like the "cunt" disparity across the pond? Could be. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, he's an established contributor with no apparent ill will behind the choice (see his userpage), so if someone wants to object, then please do it gently. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karl Meier who was put on probation after edit waring on Muhammad cartoon incident now is involved in edit war on images in Muhammad/images article. Here are his todays reverts [32],[33]. Not only in Muhammad article but on my talk page (four reverts in one day [34],[35],[36],[37] which I consider it harrasment, if not violation of WP:3RR) and on doing disruptive editing on Islamophobia. Here are his three revert of 5th (one day) [38],[39],[40]. I think there will be other such edits if you would look into his contribution. Is there anyone who can enforce his probation?--- ALM 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside to this posting please note that User:Karl Meier has been previously plauged by anon-IP wikistalkers who've systematically reverted his edits. In following some of the histories of the articles that Karl Meier has been editing on of late it appears as though he is currently undergoing another round of Wikistalking by anon-IP editors. (→Netscott) 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that I had been very briefly wikistalked by ALMScientist here[41] and here[42] but apparently ceased as soon as I called him on it[43] --ProtectWomen 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those article are in my watch list and I have past edits in them. I even do not know you except those three edits then how can I stalk you (just based on three edits)? Who are you? -- ALM 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least one these IP wikistalkers is a banned user.[44], [45], see [46], [47]. I have no trouble with the user (who has anyhow proved impossible to block) contributing per se, but it would be perverse to punish Karl for reverting his reverts. It's unfortunate that ALM scientist is willing to use this occasion to prevent Karl from participating in the Muhammad images discussion.Proabivouac 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridicules. How many times will you, ALM Scientist and your friend Itaqallah try to get me somehow punished for opposing the anon stalker that is following me around the Wiki? I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful, but fact is that WP is written according to its policies and not according to certain conservative Islamic ideas about what is and what isn't allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding what happened on your discussion page. 1. One of the reverts was a self revert. 2. You made atleast 5 reverts and none of them was a self revert 3. Removing warnings regarding issues such as your very rude "no personal attack" violations against another editor is considered vandalism, and 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I didn't cared to report your behavior then, but if you do it again I can assure that I will report your unacceptable behavior. Personal attacks and vandalism against warnings against such behavior is not allowed. -- Karl Meier 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not, the only result would be that you'd be banned from editing ALM's user talk.Proabivouac 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott is quite right when he said that a lot of your warring was against someone you had probably "dueled" against previously, this i wasn't entirely aware of when notifying Tony Sideaway. regardless, you are reverting, extensively, over a series of articles, purging a cat you believe is unacceptable (which the community has not decided upon yet, the CfD is ongoing). that's known as a content dispute. furthermore, i don't see you reverting any IP's in these particular edits[48][49][50][51][52][53], among others. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Personal attacks... ...is not allowed" .. do note that you just said: "I am sure that you are angry that you attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article isn't very successful". ITAQALLAH 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your anon friend that is reverting me is editing from several IP addresses, and changed to a new one instantly, when one of them was banned for a week. So, no, I am not dealing with one particular IP address, but I am obviously dealing with one person. It is true that I have also confronted some biased editing from editors sharing your and ALM's opinions, and I can't help thinking that this might have been one of the motivating factors behind these attempts to get me blocked. -- Karl Meier 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fact that ALM isnt very succesful in his attempts to get the images of Muhammad deleted, I believe that there should be noting wrong with pointing that out that he is obviously angry about it, considering the fact that he himself has mentioned that he is willing to get "permanently banned" over that issue. He seems to be very emotional about the whole issue, but fact is that he should realize that we should include images according to policy, and not according to what conservative Islam believe is acceptable and not acceptable to include in our encyclopedia. -- Karl Meier 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as ALM writes: "I am ready to be blocked FOREVER for this. FOREVER."[54]

ALM continues to remove valid attempts to address disputed behavior from his talk page[55],[56] regarding his blankings of images on Muhammad as follows:[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],

[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],

[105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117],[118],[119],[120],[121],[122],[123],[124],[125],[126],[127]

These are probably what Karl had in mind when he spoke of ALM's "attempts to censor the images from the Muhammad article."

ALM has taken to removing increasingly frequent warnings from a number of editors about 3RR[128], [129],[130],[131],[132] and personal attacks:[133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144] from his user talk; Karl's experience is hardly unique.Proabivouac 10:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be pointed out that ALM was right in that last incident. There had been no personal attack, the warning was bogus, and repeated reinstatements of the warning together with vandalism warnings over its removal were even more bogus. ALM had used the "kettle-pot" saying and accidentally misspelled "kettle" as "cattle". Everybody could easily have seen that was an innocent linguistic mistake. Besides, everybody is free to remove warnings from their talkpage any time, and edit-warring over their restoration easily amounts to harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys, ItaqAllah (who has been described before by another Muslim as a "wahabi editor") and ALM teaming up on Karl for edits by anonymous vandals that he reverted? It seems as if you are the anonymous IP's yourself. Why dont you guys let the anonymous IP's defend themselves? Other people are having problems with ALM due to his own edit waring - see here--Matt57 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57, It was user:Arrow740 (a self-declared critic of Islam [145],[146]; not a Muslim) who said that Itaqllah is a Wahabi and it was a personal attack. And now this is your personal attack. --Aminz 10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still worth asking why we are allying with wikistalking/edit-warring banned users.Proabivouac 10:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, whom am I allying with? I was saying that Arrow740 made the personal attack of calling Itaqallah a Wahabi, who is not a Muslim as Matt57 wrote, but rather a self-declared critic of Islam [147], [148]. Also, what Matt57 wrote was a personal attack in itself and it had nothing to do with this discussion. --Aminz 10:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you, Aminz; and as Itaqallah's comments above indicate that he recognizes this problem and doesn't mean to do so, I can't see that there is any more dispute in this regard. The question is instead why ALM scientist has seized upon this red herring to punish Karl Meier for his position against religiously-motivated censorship in mediation regarding depictions of Muhammad.Proabivouac 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all Karl's reverts, but for the very first revert listed in this complaint, I'm the person he reverted, and I can say categorically he was 100% right to do it, and I'm glad he pointed that out. So, please don't take that edit into consideration. --Alecmconroy 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to interpret this [149] as a legal threat, a rather debased currency I know but the user, Nocternal (talk · contribs) is very clearly a sockpuppet anyway (check the contribs) and this followup [150] reinforces it. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any understanding of what this person is referring to? Newyorkbrad 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy warned him on his talk page with regard to this incident report. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to the reply. Yup. He seems to think that redacting the text is impeding a law officer or some such bollocks. Hard to see how he'd enforce it across the Atlantic anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to the project, but I really do hope and prey that our law enforcement officials are not relying upon Wikipedia in order to solve active homicide investigations.  ;) Bitnine 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious legal threat, and it's a good block, and I think indefinite is the right time period unless Nocternal can indicate some willingness to shape up, particulary given the sock suspicion. The more sophisticated trolling would be "I am a law enforcement officer engaged in an investigation, and am using the Wikipedia reference desk for my investigation", but unless Nocternal is really Clancy Wiggum, I don't buy it.  ;) (Also, technically he said that Guy was threating a law enforcement office, not an officer,[151] so I guess he's claiming to be the Barbados police station or something). TheronJ 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of the original complaint, I thought at first that it was a legal threat, but it occurred to me that he might be claiming that the actions of the person he has been making his comments about in the RD question is guilty of what he is charging on the User's talk page, and is not claiming that the User himself is guilty of those items. But I may just be taking AGF to the extreme. Corvus cornix 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. And here I was giving him the benefit of the doubt: [152]. Corvus cornix 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I will need a reliable source on that claim hehe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to it?? It appears as though it's just a list, and the images do not display, what's gone wrong?? --sunstar net^talk 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it's the __NOGALLERY__ feature, it turns the gallery into a list. Saves a lot of download time. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that, Aecis. Didn't understand what had happened there, thanks for clarifying. --sunstar net^talk 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, there's quite a backlog there, anyone feel like helping out?--VectorPotential^Talk 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs dealing with. --Deskana (talk) (review me please) 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beast88 (talk · contribs) has created five other accounts so far, including problematic usernames Aintnostoppingme (talk · contribs), Aintnostoppingme never (talk · contribs), and Ha unstoppable (talk · contribs). Some admin may want to keep an eye on this. Natalie 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was also raised on WP:AN (by me), all accounts created by Beast88 have been indefblocked. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Natalie 00:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Essay controversy story is getting a rather large amount of notoriety with ABC News having just reported on it with a planned video report to be aired later on today. In light of that a good number of eyes are likely to be needed on this article. (→Netscott) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also judging by the number of editors who've changed from delete to keep / abstain I think it'd be safe at this point to snowball this article's AfD and subsequently remove its accompanying AfD tag from the article. (→Netscott) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not snowballed it, but closed it as no consensus (which is obvious). We can always revisit it later if necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that many editors have been working on this today to achive NPOV. The article was edited to follow chronilogical order and to refer to Ryan by name as little as required (and not at all in the intro). Concensus was reached that this would prevent the article becoming a bio and we felt that this is preferable as the news is more about Essjay the editor than about Ryan the individual. Please bear this in mind as many of these edits have been removed in the last couple of hours. - Regards - Munta 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look at [153]? I was just doing a quick flyby (on the road right now) and was asked by the target of that attack if I could have a look at that edit. I think it's out of line, but would appreciate if someone here could look a little deeper. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would say it is technically a personal attack, but it is most definitely not civil discourse. IrishGuy ^talk 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a rant, but not even I can see a clear personal attack. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Irishguy and HighInBC. A very long banter with very small eeps of snideness but not really any direct personal attacks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always! I'll take care of it from here... | Mr. Darcy talk 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone neutral mind looking at the recent edits of the above user on Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and, if warranted, leave them a message regarding the NPOV policy? I don't feel that I should do it myself because I've been involved with editing of the article. So far I think we've done a good job of maintaining a neutral article on a controversial person. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would welcome some help with the above user - I left this report earlier, but it was moved to the archives without action. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal has been attacking pages I created. Apparently, I deleted his article at some point and he is quite mad. Thus far he has been Stopthepowermad34, Stopthepowermad35, Stopthepowermad36, Stopthepowermad37, Stopthepowermad39, and Oppsagain2499. Can someone keep an eye out? At some point I will have to log off. IrishGuy ^talk 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he just made Stopthe powermad1. IrishGuy ^talk 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he has admitted to targeting me here. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some new ones: St op the power mad45, User:Iore iff stop 'n you, and the lovely I am here to stop irishgy. Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been nothing but disruptive, vandalizing and uploading a large number of improperly tagged pictures, contributing to the huge backlog currently at WP:CSD. He only has a handful of useful contributions I can see. I'm going through his logs to delete his pictures, and I gave him a final warning, after considering blocking him indef on sight as a disruption-only account. (Just look at that talk page... And no blocks!) Please monitor this user and consider blocking indef if this continues... I really don't think it's worth our time trying to work with someone like this otherwise. In fact, I wouldn't mind if you did it now. Grandmasterka 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User reported at WP:AIV. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I'm an administrator, I'm asking for review here. Grandmasterka 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry if I jumped the gun. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't (s)he given warnings for the vandalism edits? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasterka did warn him, just above your warning. A warning isn't defined by coming from a template or having a Stop icon in it, you know :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:18Z

Shomari15 reminds me a lot of Blobba (talk · contribs) who I recently blocked for a week, who also has sockpuppets... but I see one subtle difference in MO which I won't mention here. This pattern of behavior seems to be not uncommon -- either that, or a long-term troll that's much smarter than he pretends to be. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:21Z

Looks like User:Grandmasterka had enough and blocked him indefinitely - should be able to close this report. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at users requesting unblocking and I found this edit by a vandal from last year. It has a name and a phone number so can someone removed that edit? I don't want some kid getting harassed if someone looks through the edit history. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to bring to your notice the noxious effect the user User:Dbachmann is having on Wikipedia. This user is a known to hold deep-seated prejudices against Hindus and Indians. His run-ins with Indian Wikipedia editors are well known.

This time, this user has gone ahead and created three redirect pages that link to Indigenous Aryan Theory page. The titles of the pages are

Hindutva revisionism [154]

Hindutva pseudoscience [155]

Hindutva propaganda [156]

As any mature reader can see, terms like revisionism, pseudoscience and propaganda are inherently disapproving and dismissive in nature. They give out negative vibes about the value of a theory even when used in isolation. To understand the unease they give to an average Indian reader, please try to substitute “Hindutva” word with Jewish or Christian, and try to feel the impact. If Wikipedia does not have any page like Jewish propaganda or Christian propaganda, why bestow this honor on Hindus?

This user, who amazingly is also an admin, has a long and winding history of offending Indians, which includes hurling choicest expletives at them. I would be interested in knowing if Wikipedia has any ideas to rein in this person.

Sisodia 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Dbachmann. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's delete Cargo cult science and Category:Pseudoscience then. Can't have terms on Wikipedia that are "inherently disapproving". dab (𒁳) 07:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD. If the user is behaving in a way that cannot be resolved through disucssion, open a WP:RFC. Jkelly 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant User:Dbachmann. I corrected the spelling.

Sisodia 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are a bit curious. The article they point to currently has an interesting looking AFD. Your allegations are serious, though, and if you provided diffs, I'm sure they'd get looked at. Friday (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my accusations but I will spare you the diffs, because I am quite certain nothing is going to happen to him. This user is impervious to reason. Also, frequent leniency by the Wikipedia admins has emboldened him to a point where he fancies himself above the norms of civil language. Therefore I do not want to risk finding myself at the receiving end of his diatribes.

Please just ask him to delete these redirect pages. If I or any Indian editor tells him to do it, he won’t.

Sisodia 03:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking him simply because you say so is frivolous. If you are here to accuse us of negligence instead, then I suggest you review your own actions. We're trying to help you here, not to face a barrage of accusations, then have you whining that you're not getting your way because you're not cooperating. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as if I am being uncooperative. I just did not want to scratch old wounds. But since you insist on proof, here is one as a sample

[[157]]

Here this user not only curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses, he also grandly proclaims that “Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)”. What a revelation! One billion souls disenfranchised with a stroke of pen! Does this convince you that this user needs some attitude correction?

Sisodia 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would be good to mention that there is a current RfC on Dbachmann (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann), a related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory), and an ongoing mediation on Talk:Indigenous Aryan Theory. Just sayin'. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this is an "incident", but I could certainly do with some admins backing up my eternal struggle with our resident propagandists. Help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for national mysticism and shoddy pseudo-scholarship (um, more than it already is, that is). Look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Aryan Theory and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Kazanas while you're at it. It will also be instructive to review block log and contribs of Sisodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (was involved in an arbcom case within two weeks of his registring). [Yes, this is a call for you to get involved here. Don't leave me sitting in it for another two months, and then tsk me disapprovingly as you find me in the middle of a ring of screaming Indian patriots two monts from now] Thanks, dab (𒁳) 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it's an incident either. The "one as a sample" diff (from 2005) is an old acquaintance, it's the same old everlasting diff that always gets trotted out and misread against Dbachmann by the resident propagandists. "Curses all Indians in general with deeply offensive abuses", "Wikipedia is not for them (i.e. Indians)" is a ludicruos reading of it. Dbachmann has explained many times to the determinedly reading-impaired what he's really saying there, so it's hard to assume any good faith on the part of Sisodia and his sampling, and his unwillingness to "scratch old wounds" (I can't believe I read that phrase). Dbachmann is an excellent admin and editor, and as he says, he has been left alone to deal with these problems and to be subjected to the kind of mob talk seen above—"noxious effects on Wikipedia", indeed. Dbachmann, I'm not sure what kind of involvement you're calling for, though. How can I get involved, short of going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which hurts my soul ? Bishonen | talk 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

looking at AfD hurts your soul, Bish? :) well, I would appreciate a lot more admins keeping the notorious troublespots on their watchlists (viz., a, b, c, d, e, and much of Category:Hindutva), revert propagandistic additions, warn and block users for trolling talkpages, and look out for sock patterns (I am quite sure I various conversations I am having with borderline trolls are in fact with one and the same person, but if I take every new account to sockcheck, there will be a lot of negative results, too, so I'll look daft either way). I hadn't even seen that 2005 diff was being handed around again. It may be time to reconsider Dmcdevit's old indefban again, too. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just one suggestion dab... if they're calling you things like a bigot, and you them some things equally unflattering, why not just deal with any of the other many matters here and stop with the confrontations? If your emotions are engaged on anything in these pages so far that you're willing to resort to intemperate language, it's a sure sign you need to let that page or pages be watched over by almost anyone else. Certainly counter name calling is over the top, never mind how provoked. At least yell for help here and get a few others involved. They simply don't pay us enough to act in any less measured manner. Save the emotion for the tasks that pay the rent, buys the new wheels, nice vacations, and puts the kids through good schools, not something that isn't going to change your retirement fund, save in negative ways. Best wishes, but letting that patrol go to someone else would be 'way overdue', from the looks of it. // FrankB 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, "yell for help here and get a few others involved" is precisely what I am doing, right above your post. I am an editor in these topics, I'm not there as "uninvolved admin", but if you're going to write and guard the articles for me, I will thank you (I hope you have a background in historical linguistics, archaeology and ancient history, then). As for "intemperate language" or "name calling", I am always open to accept criticism in that field. Would you mind pointing me to any (post-2005, if possible, 2007) incidence you object to? As far as I am aware, I didn't even descend to reacting to the "bigoted". As for "paying the rent", you will be surprised to learn my "real job" as well as my "real life" is taking place off-wiki. dab (𒁳) 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who raised the RfC aginst DBachmann. I was forced into this action because Dab refuses to be reasonable. One mediation effort failed last month (because of him). Dab refuses to participate in another mediation effort currently ongoing. The reason for RfC is that Dab has no respect for WP:ATT, he is publishing original research on Wikipedia. Removes OR tag or Fact tags without providing citations and in last 4 months I have yet to see a single citation from him that checks out. What he quotes in Wikipedia is different from what citied material says. If anyone has views different from him, they automatically get hate labels. He uses derogatory terms for published authors[[158]]. He starts edit warring and then uses his admin power to block users in content dispute. All relevent details are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann.

My question to other admin is that does Dbachmann have exemption from following basic policies like WP:ATT.Sbhushan 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that 2005 diff is still doing the rounds is that the last known position of Bachmann on the issue was that he “does not see any need to apologize”. Otherwise I would have buried the matter long ago.

Anyway, forget that incidence. The matter that is getting sidestepped in this din is that why do there exist article titles like “Hindutva pseudoscience” and “Hindutva propaganda”, when no such articles exist for any other faith. Is it fair standard for an encyclopedia? Is it fair behavior for an admin? And lastly but not least, are you sure it does not violate any anti-discrimination or anti-racial laws of every country which accesses Wikipedia? I think the matter is more serious than most people are thinking it to be.

Sisodia 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann is opened, that is a more appropriate venue for you concerns than here. It will be given the attention it deserves. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I added my grievances (rants if you please) in that RFC. Let’s see if Wikipedia deletes these redirects pages or not. I just wanted to point out the fact in Europe, people can be, and have been jailed for calling Holocaust a Jewish propaganda. It is the issue of equal treatment of all religions/ethnicities. If Mr. Bachmann has to offend people, at least let him be equal opportunity offender. Sisodia 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? This is the proper venue to object to redirects, the RFC is more about the users behavior. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Geg

• 1.Possible sockpuppet. (not sure.)
• 2.Small wikistalking
• 3.Harassment.
• 4.Removing my comments on talk pages for no reason.
• 5.Removing a section in Kingdom hearts II for no apparent reason.

Both him/her and user:Apostrophe have been a pain in the butt for me lately. Could there please be a small block? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Diffs or it didn't happen. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Look at this diff for a lovely comment he made to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_Hearts_II&diff=113227430&oldid=113227046 Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That does run afoul of WP:CIVIL. However, there's no context of this so-called "sockpuppetry" and "harassment", and that section is pretty needless. JuJube 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Sockpuppetry- Geg seems to act similar to Apostrophe, both harass me, both edit the same pages pretty much. Harassment- Both keep rverting edits of mine for no apparent reason, and will remove my comments on their talk pages, claiming i am vandalising it. (see their talk pages.)Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The section has a fair amount of trivia, and they dont even explain to me why. They just harass me while reerting the edits most of the time. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC),[reply]

• Geg and I both edit Zatch Bell articles. I guess he's my sockpuppet, too. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages. JuJube 03:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if we're allowed to post here but... Apostrophe and I are not sockpuppets; we just have the same editing tendencies. This whole thing stends from something that InvaderSora starting trying to add to the article [[Kingdom Hearts II] a while ago that Apostrophe and I and a few other users such as User:Urutapu, User:Axem Titanium, and User:Ryulong would revert due to it being irrelevent. InvaderSora has actually been blocked for it a few times due to 3RR and WP:CIVIL, though for some reason his block log is empty now. And the above comment is just due to my frustration and disbelief that someone would want to add something something like this to the article despite the overwhelming consensus that it should not be added. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also.. "And by the way, there's nothing wrong with removing comments from talk pages." Well, yeah there is, but not when it's obviously just him being smart by trying to act like one of the "Welcome to Wikipedia" guys. Also, I apologize to the admins for how immature this whole thing looks. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because i changed my name. And i stopped putting it under Trivia with other notable trivia things. Just because you and your little group dont like it doesnt mean it is irrelivent. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, this sounds like a content dispute. InvaderSora, have you tried using the article talk page? This isn't a matter for the admin noticeboard, no matter how much you think they should be blocked. JuJube 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the trivia, most Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TRIV discourage the use of trivia sections in articles, especially for something this unnotable. But yes, this is definitely a content dispute, and as far as I can tell he hasn't tried using the article's talk page. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, you're not an admin, so i'm sorry, but i'll have to ask you to stay out of it. Two, regardless of editing, he has been harassing me, and that's worth a block. Also, Apostrophe seems to often wikistalk me. Proof? He's reverted my edits at pages hes never edited before. The Trivia has more notable stuff to back it up. And i dont use the talk page, because nobody is going to care. Why should i be discussing it ont he talk page if you already remove my comments from talk pages for no reason? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, diffs or it didn't happen. User talk pages are different from article talk pages. JuJube 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err... what? -- ReyBrujo 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the behavior will likely be the same. See Apostrophe and Geg's talk pages for the diffs. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wasn't harrassing you until that one time when you kept provoking me. Simply reverting your bad edits isn't "harrassment". And yeah, I did check your contributions to see what other articles you may have edited with that stuff, but "Wikistalking" is defined as "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I never had the intention of causing annoyance or distress to you, despite the amount you're causing me.

And like I said, I removed your comments from my talk page because of your sarcastic attitude about it. If you had left a normal message I would have complied. The Splendiferous Gegiford 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC

I was NOT being sarcastic. If you think the edits are bad, then IMPROVE THEM! Apostrophe is wikistalking me, though. Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people speak harshly towards you when you engage in disruptive hehaviour, don't do that, then! Uncivil comments have been made towards you by Geg[159] and Apostrophe[160]. This is true and is to be discouraged, but understand that this behavior was provoked through quantitatively worse behaviour on your part. As stated to you previously, administrator intervention is not meant as a punishment, but as an attempt to control or correct undesired behaviour. Administrative action is not required to prevent future incivility towards you from Geg and Apostrophe; the quickest method is simply to correct your own behaviour. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WORSE BEHAVIOR? SHOW ME PLEASE...Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get a link... oh yeah HERE :P JuJube 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring alone against concensus over fruit box packaging.

1. (no summary)
2. It is true, at least the fruit snack one.
3. (no summary)
4. (no summary)
5. You know what? leave me alone. I have plenty of proof that this is happening. Get off my back.
6. -sigh- You obviosuly aren't seeing the image.
7. (APOLOGIES FOR 3RR.. THIS GUY KEEPS MESSING IT UP) Source=Image. yes, it is notable. I will report you to an admin if you continue.
8. how so?
9. (no summary)
10. THERE. happy? let's at least mention it. (possible typos)
11. rv
12. and..?
13. RV. Want to get BLOCKED for HARASSMENT again? LEAVE ME ALONE NOW.
14. rv pointless removal.
15. rv- NOT pointless..

Note that multiple people were against you, all explaining that they believed your trivia to be unnotable. –Gunslinger47 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if a whole bunch of people go to say, the Invader Zim article, and say "It's unnotable thats its canceled!1", they get their way? Yruly, especially with more stuff to back it up, it is not pointless. I would like Geg and Apostrophe blocked please... Can i have some fishy crackers? 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like to point out that this isn't the first time InvaderSora has done this. This is the third time, actually. Admins, please do something about this. A warning. Anything. I'm getting quite tired of Invader's antics and I'll like us all to get back to our lives. ' 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parker007 (talk · contribs) has made several odd, somewhat disruptive edits: S/He has nominated the Misc ref desk for deletion Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposal_to_remove_Misc_desk_.40_Village_Pump and s/he's inviting editors to oppose her/his RfA. [161] [162] Looks like WP:POINT to me (making an unpopular move in order to garner oppose votes). I don't know if any action should be taken. Anchoress 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Endgame1 says this is likely; combined with his behavior, I'd say that's a yes. His past activities have been quite disruptive, but to be fair, he did apologize for some of his recent trolling; I'm somewhat hesitant to just block him, because his contributions under this account aren't noticeably worse than any other kid with more time and enthusiasm than anything else, and the sock you know is better than the sock you don't. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps vandalising the IPodLinux page as well as putting personal attacks on my user page. His contributions are vandalism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him. Next time, use WP:AIV for this sort of thing. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was going to put the entry there, but he technically isn't active now, unless I misunderstood and that active means recently and not that he's currently on a vandalism rampage. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alaric the Goth was confirmed as a sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis about two days ago [163] but is still editing. Could someone please deal with him? Kla'quot 06:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Coredesat 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.156.88.156 appears to be a User:Eoganan, who has been permanently blocked by User:Gwernol. Their IP addresses start with the same mnumbers (69.156) and the pattern of editing is the same. This user is highly disruptive, has a history of editing using different IPs and leaving racist abuse and personal attacks.

edits today

block by Gwernol

vandalism of my talk page today

previous vandalism of my talk page

previous evidence from IPs

Thanks for any help. Alun 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 1 month since it is clearly being used to evade the block on Eoganan and to make persistent personal attacks. Gwernol 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eoganan is still editing [164] and also User:Pan-ethnic [[165]]. Pan-ethnic is editing the Race article in the same way and his user page discusses "ethnic nihilism", one of User:Eoganan's favorite terms. This user is evading a permanent ban, and is repeatedly using different IPs and user accounts to replace their edits. Alun 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khoikhoi is continually removing any reference to the term "Bosnian Muslim" on the Ethnic Cleansing article, and is also trying to reword it in a POV manner at Bosniaks. I have provided 3 respected sources that show "Bosnian Muslim" is commonly used in the English speaking world, and it is in no way offensive to Bosniaks. Please someone help.

Also, I noticed that after I reverted Bosniaks, a user called Kraf001 reverted to the POV version - his first edit since 11 November 2006, which is almost 4 months ago. Coincidence? Former Anon 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Complaint Department. You've aleady got this in Dispute Resolution, leave it there. --InShaneee 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone semi protect this asap? Apparently 4chan has it in their sights tonight. I posted to page protection requests at WP:RFP but it looks backed up. thanks, sorry if this is out of procedure. - Denny 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected by User:No Guru. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:08Z

I recently blocked Master Cheif 001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for repeatedly violating copyright policies despite many warnings and a previous block. I have informed him here that if he can indicate that he understands the policies and will follow them in future I'll unblock him. I'm now going to bed and will be offline all day tomorrow, but if he responds favorably and someone wants to unblock him, please be my guest. Chick Bowen 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a common behavior to just keep uploading images and ignoring all warnings, perhaps because image policies are legalistic and hard? I blocked one recently (User:Blobba) and there's another one currently on AN/I (User:Shomari15). I don't see any easy solutions though. You did the right thing here. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:27Z

• Yeah copyright could be easier, but the upload page clearly says what you can and can't upload and if people choose to violate those rules instead of asking if something can be uploaded that is a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more proof, see [166], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [167] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this edit on Talk:Ejaculation by Infofreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) constitutes a legal threat, but the user ends his/her post with an external link to a page on the Florida Attorney General website that contains a printable legal complaint form. I suppose at least the link should be removed as it seems to encourage filing legal charges, but I'm bringing this here for further review. Prolog 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a huge misunderstanding on the standpoint of Wikipedia and censorship. I've heard that Jimbo himself can put hardcore pornography on the Main Page and it would still be legal. It's not a nice thing to say because I think it does scare people who don't understand Wikipedia's stance in law. I would remove the comment. x42bn6 Talk 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a borderline legal threat. I'm not going to block the maker because I don't think it's a call to imminent legal action, but I will remove the talk page message and warn him/her. If it happens again, the user should be blocked, imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk page comment before I was aware of this ANI thread. I don't see the comment as a legal threat. I see it as an argument that Wikipedia is on shaky ground by hosting certain types of images whithout following US law on things like age checks. Warning us about what the user perceives (rightly or wrongly) to be the natural consequence of our actions is a good thing, it is not a threat.

The user does not say they are filing legal action and they don't ask anyone else to do so. I think if they wanted to file a legal action they would just do it. If linking to the external form is a deemed inappropriate, then I suggest that just that part of the comment should be removed. Johntex\^talk 15:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This isn't a mere notification of what the law says (which I agree would be appropriate), it is an invitation to legal action. WP:NLT doesn't require a legal threat to be specific. The user is inviting an unnamed "someone" to take a legal action against Wikimedia. The user is not posting a reference to a law in furtherance of his or her position on the matter, but merely stating that if someone files a complaint with the FL atty general, Wikipedia will be screwed. This clearly falls outside the accepted form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it functions to chill vigorous talk page debate on the subject by implying that a legal complaint could be filed if the image remains. This isn't a call to imminent legal action (which isn't a criterion at WP:NLT, by the way), but is functionally a threat against Wikimedia. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Jersyko mentions above, this particular comment seems to assist in the process of filing a legal charge, and invite readers/Wikipedians to do it. I support the removal of the entire comment, as nothing stops this user, or anybody else, to comment on this issue in a non-threatening way. Prolog 15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT requires a threat to be a threat. Saying "someone could..." is not a threat to do anything. Johntex\^talk 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn’t saying ‘someone could’. This is ‘someone could, here’s how and where, and this might happen unless my position in this content debate is accepted as the correct one… Nice place you have here. Shame if something was to happen to it, eh?’ —xyzzy_n 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a nice encyclopedia you've got there. It would be a shame if someone tried to sic the Florida attorney general's office on it." Er, sounds kind of threatening, especially since the editor is using the warning to try to force a particular outcome to a content dispute. Even though I agree with the editor about the utility of the image in that article, he's going about it the wrong way. We're not designed or equipped to handle questions of law on article talk pages. Legal concerns need to go through Brad and the Foundation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Rosoft just blocked User:Glororumn30 for creating offensive userboxes, see the deletion log for evidence. I believe the user may be a sockpuppet of someone who has been blocked before for creating inflammatory userboxes.

With regard to the topic of userboxes, I'm not too much of a fan of them myself (apart from WikiProject ones) --sunstar net^talk 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuck0 has been warned for writing personal attacks on various talk pages including his own talk page done in association with the revert and edit wars between User:Chuck0 and User:Anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism in the United States and Social anarchism articles, waged on the claim from User:Chuck0 that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism argumented by the counter claim from User:Anarcho-capitalism that it is a form of anarchy.

Furthermore the above is a mere incident in a greater whole. Endless philosophical debates that doesn't present any new arguments are being written all over the anarchy related talk pages regarding the disagreement whether or not anarcho-capitalism are to be represented among anarchy related articles based on viewpoints from various users debating such in articles like Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, Talk:Anarchism and Portal talk:Anarchism addition to the above.

It has from what I can distinguish become a sitution with no ending in sight, making every anarchy page on wikipedia a battlefield between people of either the viewpoint that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchy and should be presented on various appropiate anarchy articles or those who don't think it is an anarchy and it shouldn't be represented on anarchy articles. Many people including me has become involved in this battle of what can probably be seen as POV pushing from both sides because of the obvious bias. People can not let go of the strong emotions that politics in the same way religion brings forward and which have become a problem for further editing articles.

I am seeking help to resolve this situation by maybe an administrator could perhaps arbitrary decide on how to further develope the articles in the upcomming future. Lord Metroid 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like it needs a sack of fact taggings and some related trimming when it fails WP:V, by a crew of nursemaids. Anyone have time for an edit war? But seriously, maybe posting a request for additional help on WP:AMA or WP:MEDCAB will draw some additional talent. The more outsiders that weigh in, the faster the flames will get damped out. // FrankB 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) has been banned by the arbitration committee for a period of 1 year. But he has been disrupting wikipedia ever since. He came back as Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs) and later as Lionheart5 (talk · contribs). I was able to identify both these socks and block them. Lately Hkelkar has taken to editing anonymously. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hkelkar. I have got most of the pages he used to edit on my watchlist. All his edits are of the same type - reverting articles to his own POV. But I cannot continue watching literally hundreds of articles and block IPs everyday. Is it possible under wikipedia rules and legal under US laws to contact his ISP and/or University and inform them of his disruption? - Aksi_great (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the IPs are from the University of Texas. Their network admins can be contacted regarding the abuse. --Ragib 13:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add, Hkelkar had his computer privileges revoked for 2 weeks at the University of Texas. He got an entire class blocked. I only know about it because I tried to edit some articles, and there was some block message with an "X" sign.

Some people at the University of Texas know his real name, but I can't give it out (for obvious reasons).

I know this seems a bit odd, a new user editing this page, but I did try and edit as an anon, but couldn't.

Any problems, just contact the University of Texas's technical department at abuse@utexas.edu and they will try to resolve it. Just be aware, there's no official policy on students editing Wikipedia.

As regards ISP complaints, well, don't go there. Legal minefield, so I'm told by a friend who does computer studies.

Well, there you go. Explanation given. --Trudiruddsen 13:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info. I will contact the abuse department soon to inform them of his disruption of wikipedia. I am sure I know his name too, but have not revealed it yet on wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee too is aware of his real name. You must have been blocked from editing as many IPs used by Hkelkar have been blocked due to his ban evasion. Also, I do think it odd for you to have edited this page as your first edit. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a content dispute, but Rogue_Gremlin (talk · contribs) has accused me of abusing my admin powers here, here, here, here and here. I do not believe that I have used any admin powers at all in editing Burt Reynolds, Talk:Burt Reynolds or User talk:Dalbury, let alone abuse them, but I always welcome a third opinion. -- Donald Albury 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint that you're abusing admin rights seems to come from the misunderstanding that being an admin means you get to dictate the result of content disputes. However, the main thrust of the complaint is not that you abused your admin tools, but you abused the editor tools, and thus shouldn't be an admin anymore. -Amarkov moo! 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that complaint seems to be unfounded; you've only edited the article twice, and most of the unsourced information was not added by you. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to just be bluster. I certainly saw no malicious edits or abuse of admin powers in your logs. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto...nothing to see here at all...kudos for Dalbury bringing it here to have others examine these accusations...which are obviously unfounded.--MONGO 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell him to file a user conduct rfc if he really believes what he's saying (after all, abuse of admin power is a serious allegation). You'll obviously be vindicated if he goes through with it and it should be a nice ego boost, or at least confirmation of your good work here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of late, this appears to be the first thing that people shout - "ADMIN ABUSE!!!!" - whenever they don't understand what has happened, don't like a consensus, don't like a contribution, don't like a contributor, etc. If just 1% of these types of accusations were real, we'd be in trouble. But not even 1% are (more like 0.0001%) and the noise-to-signal ratio means we'd have trouble spotting an admin gone really rouge even if it did happen. I've lost count of how many times I've been accused of it - several before I got the mop and one about 15 minutes after I got it ... downhill from there. Worth your while to ignore this one, Donald, really. 〈REDVEЯS〉 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was accused of something like this just yesterday. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this is a content dispute, and I have invited Rogue Gremlin to seek a third opinion or informal mediation, but his claims of abuse of power on my part does not establish a good basis for seeking a solution. -- Donald Albury 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the below contributers keeps adding a Bananarama hits song chart under the Careless Whisper article;even tho the song was made by the artist Wham.Bananarama's hit list does not belong under a song made by another artist!It belongs under the Bananarama article.You can't add a song hits chart for every artist that covered this song especialy sense all the artists that covered the song have links to their own articles, (including Bananarama).It would be distracting from the article,as it would take up more space than the article itself,and thus be a disservice,and pointless!I keep tryin to tell them this but everytime I erase it,he/she adds it back on.Then after I erased it a few times,he/she has the gul to write this secret messege in the article for me:

NOTE:

Please DO NOT REMOVE ANY OF THE BELOW LINES.

Removing them will be considered VANDALISM and your changes will be undone.

Persistent removal of the below lines may cause you not to be able to edit this page.

Thank you for reading.

Like I am the vandal?Regardless of this,the side bar of information,on the right side of the article (I don't know what the technical term for it is,I'm new to this)has a special box just for Bananarama,as if they wrote the song.This is favortism,and it's not allowed in an encylopedia.One of these persons is obviously a Bananarama fan.I am not able to remove this side bar of Bananarama info.An adminstrator or someone with more power needs to check out the editing history (where I got these names from) and do something 'bout this.Warn the user who is doing this,or lock the article,something,please!!!!

• 75.110.78.24
• 68.237.1.23
• 75.84.216.180
• 65.7.83.48
• Coredesat
• 193.52.234.176
• 207.69.139.7
• SmackBot
• Flyingtoaster1337

Natthegreat 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We almost never delete accounts. I've checked the article Careless Whisper and the Bananarama official website, and they did indeed release a cover of it in 2001. So the box seems to make some sense. Can you list for us, briefly, what you would like correcting? Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to click the "discussion" link at the top of the article and discuss the issue there. If you go to WP:RFC, and follow the instructions there for article disputes, you can ask for others who have an interest in that topic to offer assistance. You really don't need an administrator - you need someone who knows about music. --BigDT 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is what appears to be a new user being freaked out by a user who doesn't know how to use the the talk page them selves. And I dont think the issue is about the inclusion of the info box so much. For the record, I feel that User:Natthegreat is correct. The info box should just contain the first recording artist, Otherwise the page would just be full of info boxes. I'll keep a watch on the page and help them out if needed. Munta 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly not sure what this has to do with me, all I did was remove a redlink on Careless Whisper. --Coredesat 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On March 4th and 5th, User:Gwern appears to have created hundreds of non-functional redirects. I found them because they today flooded the Short pages list (Parsed version). The short pages software did not recognize them as proper redirects, so they all dropped onto the list. Several issues that I see:

1. Do we even want to keep several hundred different capitalizations of "A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, far Away..." redirects. A couple of others were done as well.
2. They are non-functional. Some just need a space before the first "[", others need whatever is there (before the first "[")converted to a true space. If they are to be kept, it is a non-trivial fix-it job to clean them up and make them functional.
3. Does Gwern have permission to run a bot like this? And in his own main user account?

Anyway, I'm putting this here because if the answer to #1 is no, we need more admins than me deleting these things. After fixing a couple of dozen of the non-functional ones myself, and realizing that there are hundreds more to fix, I decided I needed help of some sort.

And I'm *not* looking for a block of User:Gwern at this point. His "bot" has not been running for a couple of days. He may need a warning, especially if the bot is unauthorized, though there is already discussion on his talk from people generally concerned over the flood. But there is at the moment no immenent reason to block him. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is only one article named "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" and there aren't 50 different variations with different capitalization, the go/search box will work, no matter what you type, right? For example, we have Virginia Tech Hokies. If I type "VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES", "vIrGinIA tECH HoKIES", or any other capitalization into the box, all of those send me to Virginia Tech Hokies. So having redirects from all of these alternate capitalizations is useless. --BigDT 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His concern seems to be that linking isn't as smart as the go box, but, well... users should check when adding links. Maybe something on submit that will check any new redlinks for "go box results" for that text and suggest them would be useful. --Random832 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects from every conceivable alternate capitalization is a maintenance nightmare. The risk of someone accidentally leaving a redlink to an incorrect capitalization is less than the risk of these alternate capitalizations being vandalized becaus nobody is paying attention to them. Unless it's a prominent alternate capitalization (2006-07 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season vs the correct 2006-07 NCAA Division I men's basketball season), I don't think there's a reason to have them there. And even if it is prominent ... there's no real need for it - anyone adding the link will see it is a redlink and fix it. If they don't, someone else will. --BigDT 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed these due to a large number of them appearing at the top of Special:Uncategorizedpages. As he seems to have stopped, I don't think any immediate admin action is required, but in short yes, these are/were:

• broken, due to a missing space,
• unnecessary, for the reasons discussed above,
• liable to create ridiculous bloat if done for any significant proportion of all articles (increasing the number of pages in the main space by a significant multiple -- probably something on the order of 10 million redirects, depending on the distribution of length in words of article names),
• made with an unapproved bot (see WP:BRFA, not to say the lack of an explicit consensus anywhere to do this),
• inappropriately made from his main account,
• done at "bot-like speed", which an account not flagged as a bot really shouldn't ever do, even if approved to do the particular task.

(See WP:BOT on those last two.) If there's general agreement to delete these, I'll be happy to help out; if that's not entirely clear at this point, one might raise it at WP:RFD. Alai 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To which add, "creating what would be double-redirects, were they working redirects at all". e.g. at !Kora Language. Alai 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok. Thinking more about how to handle this. The following are suggestions:

1. We begin to clean out (delete) the bulk of these redirects that were bot-created on the 4th and 5th. At current they are an unapproved, non-functional, bot-created mess, clogging up at least a couple of important tracking pages.
2. Gwern is asked to first get consensous of the very idea of this type of massive redirect. Not sure where he should be directed to for such a discussion, but it's definitely not appropriate for AN/I. (Note that I FYIed him on this debate, so I'm hoping he'll drop in here at some point. He appears to mostly edit in the evening, US time.)
3. Direct Gwern to the bot approval process, and asked to follow it before he launches the bot again. He *really* should not be testing a bot in his user-space without any sort of authorization.

Note that in all of this I am totally WP:AGF about Gwern. I have no reason at all to think this was anything other than good intentioned. But it really, really needs to go through several more steps before anything like this is repeated. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be 1. 'agree to give up on the whole idea', and 2. delete the existing instances. But he might want to press ahead with it, and if so, then as you say, he should take some sort of soundings about this (I can only think of Wikipedia talk:Redirect and WT:RFD, but I'm open to suggestions on a better location), and if that's at all favourable to the idea, go ahead with a bot approval request. Clearing them out before he's had a chance to chime in here might look a bit hasty, if he's determined to go ahead with the idea (heaven forfend), whereas if he has no objection, all'll be well. It should be said that some sort of unapproved 'testing' in the mainspace is more or less custom and practice, but not dozens or hundreds of such edits, at full-bot-speed, and only if closely manually supervised. (Making the same mistake twice in a row isn't a good sign of appropriate "testing", much less 30 times in a minute.) Alai 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

I accidentally added my URL to the bottom of the links list on many horse related sites. I did not know that this was illegal. All of these were done on the same day so I did not recieve a warning message from you until I had posted all of these. I have stopped since I recived the first message (as a result I ask that my site please not be placed on the blacklist) I am realy writing because I have recieved a nasty email from one of your users that was absolutely uncalled for. I understand that someone might be upset about what happened but there is no reason to call someone a "dumbass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenis4kr (talk • contribs)

Don't do it again and I think you have nothing to fear. And please accept my personal apology for that other person's bad behaviour. --BenBurch 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has just recreated the same cross-namespace page to his user page for the eighth ninth time. He has been repeatedly warned (he's deleted all the warnings). I'm on my way to work, I think this warrants a short block or an incredibly stern warning. John Reaves (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the redirect against recreation, I reckon that enough action. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that this user 20th edit was a RfA self-nomination. The rest of the edits have all been user namespace-based edits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this user is still blanking their talk page, though they have created a partial archive of sorts (User talk:Owie123/descution1). But lots of editors-in-supposedly-good-standing do similar things with their pages, so further action on that score probably isn't warranted (annoying as it is). Alai 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute on WP:AWARDS finally ended last night when an admin stepped in (thank you) and removed the coordinator section and voting restrictions that southphilly and evrik insisted on against consensus. We've got some good stuff going on over there now, with some really helpful new users in. Anyone else wanting to sign up would be welcome.

Unfortunately South Philly (talk · contribs) has taken up personally attacking me here, here, and somewhat subtly here. Apparently, in an accusation which Southphilly has also accused me of in the previous AN/I above, I "control" the project. I don't know what Southphilly's definition of control is, but I invite anyone to review the page, as I seriously doubt his claims. I am getting tired of Southphilly's bitter accusations and vindictive actions and ask that he be warned and/or blocked for his disruptive behaviour (he has also MfDed the entire Awards project because, ironically, he claims it "is too bureaucratic".) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the "glass is half full" take on this, one might discern a temporal progression from "personal attack" to "subtle criticism". Either way, I don't think this requires admin action at this point. I'd suggest waiting a while, and if it resumes, taking the matter up at, say, WP:WQA, or requesting mediation. Let's hope there's no further outright disruption, at least. Alai 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the MfD as a keep here. I'm going to sleep (way to avoid conflict for a few hours). If anyone wants to overturn and open, don't wait for my return. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think South Philly was making a point with the {{afd}}, however those three cited edits were in no way personal attacks. First, after arguing with you thuglas did leave the WikiProject, and then left wikipedia citing you as a reason. Second, this is your third post to this noticeboard in less than a week, in my opinion you create a lot of drama and rely on WP:BOLD alot, but not as much on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Finally, people who say that other users exhibit in pathological hatred and appear to relish humiliating them should not throw so many stones. --evrik ^(talk) 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Drama" I would much rather have avoided - you're the one who insisted on your shiny Coordinator badge and straw polls for every edit. Resolving disputes would have been a waste of time given an administrator had to reprimand you both before you stopped. Thuglas left because of that edit war, you take as much blame as I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So, now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks? Attacking me does not refute the facts, let me quote, "Im pretty sure i would have drop kicked Dev by this point - unfortunately the internet doesnt let me do that so i decided just to quit before i get any more mad. ." --evrik ^(talk) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any good faith here left to assume, or civility to share, can we please do so, or take this elsewhere -- like dispute resolution, as suggested above? Alai 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like to get on with editing the Wikipedia. South Philly and evrik seem to want to argue til the cows come home, and then send away the cows because there's no consensus on them coming home. Evrik, I am trying to work with you on WP:AWARDS, such as that Service awards thing, but your endless sniping is making it difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user, a sockpuppet of an indefbanned user, reported by Orangemarlin at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd), ended his recent career with a lengthy series of attacks on me. (See pretty much every contribution on Special:Contributions/170.215.40.207) User:Akhilleus encouraged me to make a request for something to be done, and pointed out he has made a request for judgement at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive211#self-identifying_sockpuppets.2C_block_requested. However, while I would like this sorted, I am in no position to be able to claim I could act neutrally, and must ask others to do so. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:Nnatan, operating from an IP address (that is, not logged in), has made a legal threat with reference to the article Solomon's Temple. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave them a warning (on both the IP talk page and user talk page) regarding the edits to the talk page insinuating legal threats.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about User:Regional123, who created an account yesterday for the sole purpose of soliciting Wikipedia admins to join Conservapedia? See Regional123's contribs. NawlinWiki 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would endorse an indef block for such an SPA. However, its best to hear what others say first.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat it like any spam(in other words what Persian Poet Gal said). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot 'em spammers. Yuser31415 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked by A Man In Black.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. I think it would be useful for them to recruit editors to write articles like Pierce Butler, which state as fact, "Pierce Butler (1866-1939) was perhaps the finest Supreme Justice ever." They don't even have an article about Minnesota, so I wonder how budding young conservatives will learn about the state. Maybe it's just flyover country. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different project, different rules and priorities. No sense sniping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Conservapedia, may want to keep an eye on Davey138 (talk · contribs) - just registered and made these kinds of edits. MastCell 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJASE1 passes the Turing test and is apparently a flesh-and-blood human. Link (ir)relevance issues should rather be discussed more directly. Миша13 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User:RJASE1 is an unauthorized bot. Look how fast he does dozens of edits, all with the same edit summary (which I believe is false, nowhere is there a centralized list of banned URLS per WP:EL.)[168] Nardman1 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not. Shadow1 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should be blocked for vandalism. Not only are the edit summaries unhelpful, but he's using some kind of unapproved centralized list to remove links. Turns out some other users are as well, including User:Betacommand. Nardman1 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making mass edits without discussing them goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Nardman1 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing bulk spam edits doesn't require discussion. IrishGuy ^talk 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is just removing links, he isn't a bot. The summary doesn't allude to a centralized list of URLs but instead is pointing out which URL he removed and his reasoning (WP:EL violation). All the links he is removing are from the same domain hence the summary being identical for each edit. IrishGuy ^talk 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking at the links he's removing to see if they were inappropriate links before accusing him of vandalism? He's removing 2 or 3 a minute. Not an unrealistic rate at all. Leebo ^T/C 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some of them might be inappropriate, but mexicanfood.about.com isn't a spam link, and when I asked Betacommand about why he removed it, his answer was rather vague. [169]. If they are going to call other people's hard work spam and then remove it from the Encyclopedia I think it's fair I have access to discuss the link list they're using. Nardman1 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to mexicanfood.about.com is not necessary in the Aguas frescas article. Even if you dislike the word "spam" it's not necessary in the article and doesn't meet WP:EL. It's perfectly understandable for it to be removed. Leebo ^T/C 21:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go about it. WP:EL DOES NOT BAN THIS LINK. Instead of insisting it does, why not explain why it does? User:Beetstra's answer to this question is similarly unhelpful [170] Nardman1 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it was rather helpful. RJASE1 was just doing some external link cleanup, it's not like it's a radically new process on Wikipedia that requires approval from Jimbo. Shadow1 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL sets standards for external links; the onus is on the person adding the link to show that it meets the requirements of WP:EL, not on the person deleting it to show that WP:EL BANS IT (to borrow your phrasing). WP:EL is quite clear in its criteria for a good external link. At any rate, mass addition of an external link, even if it appears to satisfy WP:EL, is not allowed by WP:SPAM. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I would say that he is using a monobook script that GeorgeMoney wrote to do mass removals of inappropriate links. I've used it myself on occasion; I don't have the URL handy at the moment. Removing links isn't vandalism, it's more janitorial work than anything else. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely report that I am not a bot - I was removing mass links to this particular website (doing janitorial work, as Irishguy says). I fully believe that what I was doing was in compliance with WP:EL - the links seemed to me to be promoting this particular site and added nothing beyond what the articles would include if they became featured articles. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there's a central list of links to be removed. Such obscurity is unhelpful to a free encyclopedia. Nardman1 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say anything like that? Where are you getting that, and why are you being confrontational at the same time? Leebo ^T/C 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I saw the link being added in the RSS feed and then searched web links for articles linked to this site. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a central list of links to be WATCHED, that's what the linkwatcherbots do, and then forward it to a channel, so we can review it. There is also a list of bad sites that are reverted on sight by a bot, but it is a very exclusive list - example.com and such. The bot only watches NS0 and only reverts once before referring it to a human. This isn't a cabal, and it isn't a conspiracy. Assume Good Faith without compelling evidence to the contrary. ST47Talk 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts; conform RJASE1)The link mexicanfood.about.com was added by user:mexicanfood (example addition). Upon reverting I encountered a number of linkfarms containing links to recipes. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (not a linkfarm) and WP:EL (external links should be kept to a minimum) they were removed. As a further explanation; I believe that the information can be incorporated into wikibooks (using {{cookbook}} here), which makes all these links to recipes unnecessary. Moreover, WP:EL gives the possibility to link to a linkfarm ({{dmoz}}), which would in this case be better (unbiased; a google search on Aquas frescas gives 536,000 hits). In case you were wondering what list we were working from, see here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I even tried to advise the user here but they went back to adding links - that and the name convinced me it was a spammer. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link posted by Beetstra only had one entry and that link had highly unpleasant levels of advertising so I removed it. I guess that means they have all been nuked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess also for the record, about the speed of edits and the assertion that he is a bot. 3 to 4 edits per minutes is not too difficult to do. I have done that pretty easy manually doing vandalism patrol (before I got popups or stuff like that). with popups or other tools, it becomes even easier to edit that rapidly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:PWnsivander the Great as an obvious reincarnation of User:Mike Church, who was banned for long-term sneaky vandalism. Most obviously, he blanked a page meant to keep track of his sockpuppets. Other clues include his use of the word "pwn" and his obsession with "prestige". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Socks:

• 209.247.5.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.215.27.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.244.43.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Jonathannew7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One user, using three anonymous and two named accounts. Repeated and persistent deletion of talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue#Category cleanup over the past two months. A partial list of diffs: [171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181]

Has been blocked twice for 24 hours already and once for a week, but keeps on deleting using either one of the non-blocked accounts, in true whack-a-mole style. Has been asked to participate in the discussion instead of deleting it, and has been warned on all five accounts already, but keeps deleting user talk page warnings (examples: [182][183]). --Plek 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiLoco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalizingofthesame information (despite consensus). Other vandalism on other pages. Warnings abound on his talk page. McKay 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12.168.24.203 is owned by the American Cancer Society. It was also the home of a particularly nasty troll from late 2005 through 2006. I've unblocked it at the direct request of the ACS - if anything nasty comes from this IP, please do let cancer.org know - it's supposed to be a work IP. I've asked them for a sysadmin contact to add to the User:12.168.24.203 page - David Gerard 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help.

I am new to Wikipedia/WikiMedia. In the process of trying to make copy a Wikipedia HelpPage for my own Wiki I realized had I accidentally made the edits to Wikipedia itself. The edits involve two redirects, all focused around the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia

however, when i tried to revert/undo my accidental changes by doing another revert, it seems that all the history has gone. I think becuase of some cyclic redirects.

Could someone please fix these changes before too many people get upset! Sorry! Mr-morfik 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Yeah, double-check the hostname first :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to reason with an editor insistent on adding his own WP:OR family tree of Mike Huckabee ot the page. The link he provides here: Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Ancestry leading to this: [184], is admitted as speculation needing confirmation. (see note at the bottom.) Further, a check of that page's edit history shows it's all his own research and his own conclusions, and not cited from anywhere. I tried the 'random page' link on that wiki, and got NINE different pages he'd written. In fact, the entire site seems to be his professional genealogy site, replete with a user page advertising his fee rates. I've offered to him the option to find citations for HOW Huckabee's family history has influenced his professional career, policies, positions on issues, etc., but his is getting hostile. I cannot find a way to make him grasp that using a wiki as a source for a wiki is bad, that his wiki is OR, and probably spamming, and so on. Help Please? ThuranX 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is very confused about what is and is not allowed on talk pages. The issue of a Wikipedian doing source-based research has come up on WP:NOR many times. The answer has always been that Wikipedians are free to do research and post a link to the Talk page, if another Editor wants to add that link to the article they may. The prohibition involves Wikipedians adding their *own* OR to an article page. It does not involve Talk pages whatsoever. Wjhonson 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, the complaining editor is consistently mischaracterizing the page linked. Please review the page yourself to see that it's fully documented, cited, sourced. His hyperbolic argument should be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. I have never, not once, tried to add this link *to* the article page. I posted a request on the Talk page, to see if someone would add the link. That is the approved, accepted, behaviour as you can find in the WP:NOR archives. The issue has come up many times. Wjhonson 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "wiki" you link to seems to operate as your own private website - all of the edits are by you, everything is by you. The material seems to represent a novel synthesis and as noted, you even say that it's "speculation" at one stage in the process - so no, it should not be added. --Fredrick day 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, this issue should not be here. I suggested that the complaining editor take his issue to WP:ATT and instead he takes it here ;) If the issue is that the site is not "reliable" then don't cite it. It's simple. Wjhonson 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is down the hall that way. If the material hasn't been posted to the article itself, but has just been placed on the talk page for comment, I fail to see why this would need any admin intervention. File for a third opinion or article RFC and get some more input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images to WP, either leaving them unsourced or tagging them with obviously invalid fair use claims. Despite the numerous messages left on his talk page, he continues to do so. He has already received his final warning for page vandalism too. Thought I should probably bring this here for admin attention, rather than at WP:AIV, as it's not really a case of "simple vandalism". Thanks a lot. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruption, per my comments in the last thread about this person. He continues to upload photos with no copyright status or incorrect copyright status, and vandalize, and has been warned numerous times about this despite somehow never being blocked. More trouble than he's worth. Review welcome. Grandmasterka 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Againts WP:LIBEL User with account Rajsingam (talk · contribs) banned for numerous issues is now indicating that he shared his pass word with me and indirectly accuses me of using his previous account. He has a new account called Rajkumar_Kanagasingam (talk · contribs) . The accusations are in the talk page User_talk:Netmonger#Edits_of_Rajsingam. I want to find out what is the recourse for user like me who has never ever have done what he accuses me of. All what did was to advise him on his talk page as a newbie. Please helpRaveenS 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks that displaying Essjay's photograph with a DYK item on the Main Page is grossly inappropriate? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. Who signed off on that? Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nishkid64, it seems. [185] Not one of his better choices, IMO. -- ChrisO 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Inappropriate how? Hbdragon88 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainly the fact that its totally self-referential- comes across as "ooh, look at us we're Wikipedia, aren't we important"? Also its unnecessarily unpleasant to Essjay. Oh and its rather POV- I mean he didn't fake credentials, he just claimed to have some he actually didn't have. WjBscribe 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. And we don't even know that it's Essjay. Trebor 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, and so does Dragonfly, who has removed it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Inappropriate as in highly insensitive, and also grossly Wikipedia-centric. This is starting to look like organised persecution, frankly. -- ChrisO 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course it's inappropriate. Have some dignity, people. — Dan | talk 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the pic removal and the removal of the article itself from DYK. Ill-advised. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% Endorse removal - Munta 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why pour more salt in the wound? Grandmasterka 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Putting the ethical issue aside this picture has no relable basis of fact. No one can confirm that this is Essjay. If someone uploads the portrait of Leonardo to wiki claiming it to be oneself, this would be as much reliable. Whatever people think about leaving him alone at last (or refusing to), ethics is more of a feeling while WP:RS is a policy. Support the removal. --Irpen 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that an editor (User:Randomfrenchie) uploaded an image (Image:School 804.gif), claiming that the image is in the public domain. However, I am quite sure that this picture is not in the public domain, and I am also quite sure that the uploader did not get permission to use the picture as the summary suggests. (No, I can't prove it.) I have talked to this person in real life, and my conversation with him showed that he probably would have lied about an image's copyright status. What action should be taken about this image? PTO 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can talk to him about it (in real life or on-wiki), and if that doesn't work, you can take the image to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or just slap a {{no license}} tag on it. If you have problems beyond that, you can come back here or talk to me. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]