Hopefully I am reporting this to the right place. In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_PC I have continued to revert the bits of Igor Sotelo's contributions that are POV or are incorrect assertions, but he continues to revert my corrections. We have discussed on the talk page in length but cannot come to concensus. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thankyou for your time. Timeshift 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsure why I have not got a response from an admin. If this is the incorrect place to request this, please let me know where I should be doing so. Thankyou. Timeshift 04:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page, as this isn't really an ANI matter as far as I can tell. -- nae'blis 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I need an admin to look at this. Looks like mostly a personal attack against User:SandyGeorgia. That sort of discussion should be removed, but when it is, it gets reverted. --James Duggan 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if my view on this is welcome here - if not it is easily removed - but to me that does seem to start off honestly/legitimately and develop into somewhat of a lengthy tirade against SandyGeorgia herself. There are certainly one or two reasonably clear personal attacks in there, and only an admin would be best placed to take a stance on those given the limited severity, but I'm particularly concerned that the articles talk page may not be the place to talk about a given editor of that article in such a way and almost as if he or she is not there. Crimsone 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. Joelito (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the salient and unresolved points. There is nothing to be gained by brushing this issue under the carpet.

I do have the advantage of all of you in knowing exactly who User:SandyGeorgia is and have years of experience of what she is capable of in terms, not only of abusing Wikipedia for her own ends, but also damaging any editor with whom she associates.

Strangely I had arrived at exactly the same conclusions before I even guessed her identity...and was just as alarmed by her behaviors.

Here is a list of previous discussions:

• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [1]
• WP:AN/I initiated by Zeraeph [2]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Zeraeph [3]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by SandyGeorgia [4]
• WP:Mediation Cabal initiated by Keyne [5]
• Talk:Asperger_Syndrome the discussion referred to in above discussion initiated by Keyne [6] 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• [[7]]--Zeraeph

Enough. Your stalking, allegations, and accusations of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc. at User:SandyGeorgia end here. This is your only warning. Either present evidence at the ArbCom or desist your apparent personal quest. Joelito (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joelr31. All the above links show is a huge reluctance on your part to back up your accusations of skulduggery against SandyGeorgia with any evidence whatsoever. Cut out the personal attacks, and go through the dispute resolution process (but this time, engage with it properly - nobody is going to accept "it's too difficult for me to explain but I think she's horrible so you should too"). --ajn (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no "reluctance" you only have to look at her actual behaviors with an open mind, particularly towards, for example User:SuperFlanker. Some very nasty, manipulative double standards being imposed there.

I have a life, I don't have 18 hours a day to track back every convoluted little strategy for ARBCOM (thus satisfying the rather sick needs of this individual who has stalked me for years with JUST that in mind). I will not enable her by silence either. I feel it is the responsibility of admins (that goes with the power) to actually OBSERVE a situation like this for themselves, with an open mind, not to try and brush it under the carpet.

What I will be doing is approaching the authorities in her locality with a view to getting her the help and restraint she needs. I have ample evidence against her real identity to ensure that. When that happens she will vanish. Problem solved. Though I doubt if anyone will bother to apologise to me for their error.

I also take serious issue with Joelito's threat here and on my talk page to "do something unspecified" unless I disregard my own conscience, as well as the facts and knowingly enable this person to continue their abuses. I have 8 years in which to form a very well rounded opinion of this individual based up reality, that, and not the threats of an admin, must dictate my choices. --Zeraeph 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not make it clear that it was your only block warning for disruption, personal attacks, etc. Joelito (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances (which aren't really anything I personally should get involved with), surely you can see that the talk page of an article is an inappropriate place for that kind of discussion at least? Crimsone 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't initiate the discussion...everybody forgets that... --Zeraeph 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph has again brought her vendetta to the Asperger Talk and has linked the discussion to the Administrative NoticeBoard's discussion about her behavior. This is seemingly in violation of the precise directive, here and on her talk page. 152.163.100.65 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a little evidence [8]. An anonymous user on the same service [9] User:SandyGeorgia admits [10] to claiming that the discussion was initiated at least two weeks earlier than it was ([11] and [12]. Enough subtle little distortions like this completely rewrite history or pretty much anything else. (Incidentally, by purely innocent coincidence 152.163.100.65 is ALSO an AOL web proxy server.) --Zeraeph 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to get very angry here because it seems User:Joelr31 wants to demand evidence with one hand and delete it with the other [13]. What kind of sense does that make? How fair is that? Let me stress that I have sent him hard evidence that the last editor in that discussion (bar myself) is ALSO an AOL user. I have yet to receive the courtesy orf a reply. WHAT is the point in producing evidence that only gets suppressed or ignored? --Zeraeph 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Joel is not just some user. He is an administrator - the final decision makers here at Wikipedia. He didn't tell you that you had no basis, and he explicitly told you how to pursue this through channels. It is scarcely "evidence" to tell someone that Sandy posts from home (AOL) as well as work (and on the road for work and vacation - hotel access) and therefore is to be found post with many many IP addresses since she stated all these things last Friday when you used Wiki to do some phishing on 3 different users. This is merely stalling tactics on your part.

In the meantime, you have again deleted an admin's warning from your Talk:Zeraeph page and you have reposted the repeatedly admin-deleted SandyGeorgia material to Talk:Asperger_syndrome You obviously have no respect whatsoever for authority or for Wikipedia, no less Joel.205.188.116.65 02:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER AOL Web Proxy Server [14]...no disrespect to Joel but I'd like to meet some of his verzion fanclub before I die. Am I the only one who finds this a BIT much for coincidence? That not only does SandyGeorgia, but EVERY SINGLE anon poster on this subject, and AT LEAST one subscribed (evidence provided to Joel) should post from AOL? (Though NOT Joel's doing, I am certain of that much...I had no option but delete his warning as he incidentally identified the stalker I have no real option but refer to anonymously, against protocol...any time he cares to reword it to avoid that, it will stay.)--Zeraeph 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have already posted all your suspicions and named your supposed stalker/stalkers last week in the last Cabal and in your CheckUser (both now closed) and earlier today on ASTalk. How can it suddenly be a big secret? 205.188.116.65 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How do YOU suggest that so many random AOL users just happen to come across this dispute and feel compelled to comment on one side, and one side only?

AS for your question, while other edits get buried under the weight of editing, and no one sees then, unless they are determined to dig, in fact, any user who feels identified is entitled to request the deletion from history, my talk page is to remain and thus doesn't even identify you. --Zeraeph 02:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, or you could have just followed protocol for editing articles and instead of removing it, you could have reworded part of it to take out the indentifying info if that's what you feel you must do. At least it would appear as cooperation. As said many ties, that disscussion does not belong on the articles talk page. It can be found via the diffs if you need to use it as evidence. ARBCOM is the place for that kind of discussion if it's truly nessecary, and it's up to you whether you wish to take it there or not - the fact is that it's where it belongs, not on the articles talk page. (personally, I'm a happy customer of plus.net - no bias here)Crimsone 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I would rather leave him the freedom to do his own rewording as there really isn't an obvious way to take the ID out of the existing wording without considerable alteration of meaning, and, as an admin, he should really have had a BIT more sense than to identify the person I was referring to. Also, he restored MORE than his comment which, to me, was a bit iffy...

I genuinely feel that the previous discussion should not be removed without those who initiated it having some resolution, or failing that the discussion should be linked. I am not phoney, I can't fake co-operation I don't feel. So here is a link to the evidence of pretty obvious abuse you just chose to bury [15]. I know this situation for so many years, just about the WORST thing you can do is try to brush it under the carpet.

Apart from which: "WE ARE AOL - YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED"! ;o) --Zeraeph 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A fellow Star Trek Fan I see :D. You do understand of course(?) that should you need to, you can infact link to an old revision of a page - as long as nobody edits the article from that page. It's best to just post a link to the last diff, because it will list the full page below the highlighted differences anyway. :) (well, you can post it where needed except to delibeerately draw attention on the articles talk of course)Crimsone 03:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OH I know THAT...but my point is more that when the editors who raised the issue return it would be nicer for them if it hadn't just been dismissed, as though they, and their point of view didn't matter. I reaqlise that a lot of the time, when people raise the same issues on Wikipedia it's a little bit stage managed, but not in this instance. I do not even know the editors who raised it, and I don't agree with all the changes they wished to make, but what I DO support is their right to make them without permission of User:SandyGeorgia,and their right to query a situation where that is not the case.

All of which happened long before I had the first CLUE who User:SandyGeorgia really was or just how bad it could get. --Zeraeph 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have an anon editor reverting and rewording on behalf of User:Joelr31 [16]. I cannot imagine any way in which it is appropriate for an anon editor to reword anybody's comments on anybody's talk page. (see WP:TPG). AS a matter of fact there is absolutely no reason why I should not delete other remarks, or even this remark from my user talk Help:Talk page, but I am happy to leave the warning WHEN it has been reworded by the original author and no-one else. --Zeraeph 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS And the above edit [17] was AOL AGAIN [18]. I cannot believe that nobody will acknowledge this blatant sockpuppetry. --Zeraeph 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My Suggested Solution[edit]

As long as User:SandyGeorgia is aware that she is being observed she will probably do no harm to Wikipedia (which is surely the point?). I suggest that a previously uninvolved totally impartial, Admin observe her. I am quite happy to be similarly observed.

I have the right to explain on my talk page why I will always be abrupt and standoffish now (I will be, nothing I can do about that) so that innocent editors never suspect it is "something they have done". I have not even specified GENDER let alone identified anyone. --Zeraeph 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph blocked[edit]

See User talk:Zeraeph. --ajn (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed There is also a bordeline-abusive checkuser request in the mix, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A Kiwi. Put up or shut up indeed. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated response from SG. As I announced in several places on Wiki many days ago, I am away from home and have limited internet access. It is interesting that yet another campaign against me has been launched in my relative absence.

I am very active at WP:FAR and WP:FAC; this campaign against me has continued for almost two months, since I happened to cross paths with Zeraeph on the Asperger syndrome FARC. She has now smeared my name on three ANIs, three mediations (in which she refuses to participate), and across multiple talk pages, but has yet to present a single example of the "abuse" she alleges. She has now moved on to claiming I'm someone I'm not, although I have had no interaction with the articles she edits since shortly after the AS FARC.

While I appreciate any and all attempts to help stop the unfounded smear, innuendo, and ongoing personal attacks against me, three refusals to mediate and a CheckUser which exonerated me have convinced me that no amount of reason is going to convince Zeraeph that I am not who she thinks I am.

After the CheckUser showed her wrong, she made the unfounded and libelous attack on me: "User:SandyGeorgia is actually an erotomanic stalker who attached herself to both myself and one other person since February 1999. If I had realised THAT I would never have requested a 'checkuser', because it was a waste of time, she's just too practised at sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to get caught that easily." [19] She has also removed past warnings about this behavior from her talk page. [20]

I hold little hope that mediation or ArbCom will have any effect on this escalating pattern of attack, as it appears that no amount of reason or evidence will effect Zeraeph's imagination. I hope that admins will enforce that she stop accusing me of being someone I'm not, and attacking me across many article pages, and I respectfully wish that the many AOL users who have followed her from an off-Wiki dispute to Wikipedia would 1) stop e-mailing me about the problem (I'm not interested in the drama), and 2) stop bringing that dispute to Wiki: Wiki admins are able to deal with this. Since there has yet to be a shred of evidence to back up a single claim made by Zeraeph, I believe the wisest course of action for me is to ignore the rants. Regards, Sandy 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page, also. One thing is absolutely clear - the next time Zeraeph makes any allegation of this sort, however veiled, outside a case put to the arbitration committee, she (I'm assuming you have certain knowledge of Zeraeph's gender) will be blocked for considerably longer than a week. Possibly permanently, unless another admin is willing to come to her defence. --ajn (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph is now blocked for a month, her talk page is locked to prevent her repeating these allegations, and I've asked on WP:AN if there are any objections to a community ban. --ajn (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe User:Doc glasgow's deletion is inline with any speedy deletion criteria we have. I see this as a case of admin error and am requesting intervetion. --Cat out 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this to DRV, but actually User:Tony Sidaway deleted your recreation of this attack page.--Doc 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Still admin error. I have no idea what DRV is. --Cat out 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Doc glasgow deadminned?  Grue  17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked the logs and he got it back on August 8,2006 without any apparent RfA. It is even more interesting than Carnildo case.  Grue  17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am only intersted in restoring the deleted page. I have no intention of turning this into a "de-admin" campaign. --Cat out 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This looks like some CVU political thing. Silly, in my opinion, but that's not grounds for deletion. It was deleted for personal attacks, but I don't see where there are personal attacks. We absolutely have to stop this childlike habit of equating criticism with personal attacks. Friday (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading it, it's somewhat offensive but not really a personal attack. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time figuring out what use it is. One does get tired of petty wiki-politics. Regarding Doc glasgow, he voluntarily gave up his adminship (as I recall), and therefore was permitted to ask for it back. Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible harm in keeping it: Stirring up more useless drama between Essjay (talk · contribs) and Cool Cat (talk · contribs).

Possible harm in deleting it: Making CC unhappy.

Since I think both cases leave CC annoyed, let's favor not starting even more lame CVU drama. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we've got "this was deleted for no reason" drama instead. Following the principal of least drama, the right answer is to leave it alone until there's a reason to do otherwise. Trumped up excuses for deletion cause drama all by themselves. Friday (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's drama on WP:ANI, which is a black hole sucking in all drama into a point with infinite drama and zero volume. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The "principal of least drama" is what led to WWII, by the way. If you keep letting people do what they want because stopping them would cause a little bit of trouble, eventually it grows to become such a large problem that when you must deal with it, it becomes a huge amount of trouble. Do you honestly think that this userbox was okay? If not, don't fight against its justifiable deletion. If we start letting things like this survive we're going to be slipping backwards again in the whole userbox mess and eventually we'll be back to the "This user is a pedophile" ones again. --Cyde Weys 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I think it's OK. Ironic that you'd mention slipping backward in the userbox mess tho- this one was in user space, where it belongs, and it was deleted anyway. Who's slipping backwards, here? Friday (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Cyde was alluding to the brief proliferation of "attack" userboxes–we don't want to start that again. Disputes ought to stay off-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am uninterested in the "drama". And this has nothing to do with pedophiles. The userbox does not in any way imply political affilation/beliefs to anything. It merely suggests I dislike one action taken against me by an unspesified user. The implications of that action is present.

An interesting coincidence is that this comes at the same time of the afd of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit logo contravercy in commons, deletion of various pages tagged with {{attackuser-m}}, practicaly the fanatical rise of WP:DENY (both Doc and Tony seem to be supporting it).

--Cat out 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly assume good faith. I'd have deleted that userbox any day and from any user. It has nothing to do with DENY or CVU - so cut the paranoid victim bit. Secondly, don't wikilawyer. It didn't concern an 'unspecified user' - the user may not have been named, but he was specified - you identified the subject as the one who 'took CVU from you'. Basically, if you want to criticise Essjay that's fine by me, I've no idea what your dispute is about and no interest in taking sides. But community is built either by discussion or dispute mechanisms to settle differences, not be carrying on polemics by userbox. Either stay away from your Essjay issues, or try to resolve them though constructive means. This is disruptive and frankly makes you look ridiculous. Drop it. --Doc 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

I am assuuming good faith. Thats why I stated all that to be mere coincidences. Coincidences happen every day! Though, I don't trust coincidences.

I have been denied all forms of dispute resolution. Its beyond the juristictions of Arbcom and the user said that he didn't care about any kind of mediation. So, since I do not have any of the dispute mechanisms at my disposal, I want to be able to at least complain about it on my own on my userspace.

If you want me to drop it, please undelete the page.

--Cat out 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted because it was a clear attempt by Cool Cat to needle Essjay and stir up his sometime feud. As his most active mentor I do sometimes take action that I think is in Cool Cat's greater interests. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Needle essjay? His name wasnt even mentioned. Your average stranger would not even know who or what was this about had you not mentioned his username. The userbox is simply a "this user is annoyed because of this". Furthermore, the userbox is NOT even directly visible on my userpage (you'd have to go through a hide/show thing).

Oh, and please do not worry about my "greater interests" anymore, I had enough of that.

--Cat out 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the concern is not about what the 'average stranger' would see, feel, or understand about the userbox in question. Rather, it is about what the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of admins and other editors familiar with the involved parties would see. Moreover, Essjay would certainly have recognized who you were referring to. If you feel that you have an unresolved dispute with Essjay, deal with it through formal channels or write the matter off and put it behind you. Don't create userboxes to attempt any sort of dispute resolution—they won't work and they will be deleted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what? Is it illegal to complain now? Wikipedia is not censored like that. I am priparily complaining about a lack of dispute resolution...

Why cant people focus on userboxes such as Template:User State of Kurdistan rather than some discrete userbox on my userspace...

--Cat out 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This user is an ex member of the Counter Vandalism Unit since a single user single handedly ejected him from it. (complaining about an event on irc)

This user also pities self for entrusting the wikiproject into such a person. (self criticism)

How does THAT violate NPA? --Cat out 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See enthymeme. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-07 06:01Z

Thats ridiclous bob... --Cat out 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I approve of this userbox as long as it is subst'ed to reduce server load. —Centrx→talk • 06:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please do not recreate. Either try to resolve the dispute — or keep this off-wiki criticism of a Wikipedia user, off-wiki. Thanks. El_C 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not a personal attack, If it is a personal attack it shouldnt be on articles. :P --Cat out 15:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

As this page has been recreated some four times in the last day or so I've taken the liberty of protecting it and marking it {{deleted}}. Feel free to change I just thought it wise given the circumstances. - Glen 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2 of the 4 versons were idfferent from each other. the last version had nothing to do with the original version. There will be something in place of that page. Weather related the the original text or not. --Cat out 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I am appealing my recent 3RR block on the grounds that the following three questions are not answered by somebody--I don’t expect them to be answered because to the best of my knowledge the accusation that I violated 3RR is not true, and therefore there are no answers to these questions. But if somebody can answer these questions than I will not pursue this matter any further. Thank you for your consideration.

The sole definition of a “Revert” - as stated at WP:REVERT is “To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time”

The accusation made towards me is that I reverted the Vic Grimes page more than 3 times over the course of 24 hours. The following were the edits I made to the page on September 5:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73877744 (3:20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73874225 (2:54) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73872499 (2:42) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73871536 (2:35) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73871187 (2:33) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vic_Grimes&oldid=73870424 (2:27)

If my edits meet the criterion for constituting three or more reverts, then somebody is obligated to provide me with AT LEAST FOUR links to past versions of the Vic Grimes page (PRIOR to September 5) where the page is “identical to how it used to be at some previous time.” In this case, “some previous time” refers to - as I said just a few lines above - “past versions of the Vic Grimes page (PRIOR to September 5). I am not asking for four links that make the page look NEARLY identical to how it used to be; that is NOT the definition of a revert. I want somebody to provide me with AT LEAST FOUR links where the page is EXACTLY, 110% the SAME as it was at any of the following times on September 4:

3:20 2:54 2:42 2:35 2:33 2:27

If AT LEAST FOUR links cannot be produced, I will continue to pursue this matter because that will indicate to me that my account was wrongfully suspended for WP:3RR despite my not violating the WP:3RR policy.

Thank you for your consideration.

JB196

Hi. In short, edit warring is bad. That's 6 instances of drastically altering the existing page into your own version in the space of one hour. Edit warring is bad, and wikilawyering about edit warring is worse. Instead, wait out your block and then discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page (and consider learning why effectively removing the article is generally frowned upon). — Lomn | Talk 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read about this situation more thoughtfully and try to see it from my perspective. Please do not accuse me of "wikilawyering"; I do not know the first thing about law and wwould be about as comfortable acting in a courtroom as a lawyer as My Cousin Vinny. There is an Administrator's noticeboard for "incidents" that call to be brought up. I was suspended for something that didn't happen. Again, I ask politely as possible - What will be done about the fact that I was wrongfully blocked for a 3RR instance that did not exist?JB196 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You reverted six times in an hour. That the edit was originally a self-revert stopped being relevant after someone else replaced it. You don't own your edits, and you can't revoke them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:REVERT, your statement that "You reverted six times in an hour" is blatantly false and has been proven false already.JB196 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad. Don't do that. Discuss changes on the talk page instead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya. All that matters is the edit warring. Blocking you stopped it. Hence, the 3RR block worked. That's all that matters. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:JB196 is relevant to this issue, which seems to be larger. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all fine and dandy. I propose, however, that we change the word "identical" at WP:REVERT because obviously the version does not have to be "identical" for osmeone to be suspended; thus the current version of the article is outdated. What are your people's feelings on this?JB196 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that you stop wikilawyering and go about your business before some evil rouge admin blocks you for plain old-fashioned disruption. Guy 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and have no view on this dispute, and agree that it should be addressed in the context of the prior discussion identified by AMIB. However, I think I understand the source of this user's (actual or feigned) confusion: I just noticed that the definition of "revert" or "reversion" contained in WP:REVERT is not the same as the one provided in WP:3RR. This is because WP:REVERT deals primarily with how to accomplish a complete reversion (e.g. to deal with vandalism) whereas WP:3RR deals with prevention of edit-warring. JB196, if you read WP:3RR I think you will see that edits can be a violation of the letter and the spirit of 3RR even if there aren't four identical versions over the course of 24 hours.

(after edit conflict) I see JB196 just picked up the same thing. I don't think the definition in WP:REVERT is "outdated" so much as that the two articles are discussing different, though related, concepts. Still, some clarification might be in order. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, good point. We should change WP:REVERT so as not to confuse people into thinking it is in any way related to WP:3RR. However, the principle remains: don't edit war, and don't think you can wikilawyer your way out of the general injunction against doing so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon - that works for me. Although do NOT accuse me again of "wikilawyering" when I did nothing of the sort. You do not correctly understand what "Wikilawyering" means if you believe that pointing out a valid discrepancy between two official policy pages (which has been proven to exist) is "wikilawyering." So anyway, what will be done about this discrepancy. One can obviously be suspended for 3RR without reverting to an "identical" version. The word "identical" needs to be replaced with something else.JB196 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. The language in WP:3RR needs to not refer to WP:REVERT, that's all; they're two completely different critters. WP:REVERT is about fixing vandalism, and is actually the sole exception to WP:3RR. You were busily attempting to show that your misbehaviour (edit warring) was justified by your interpretation of Wikipedia policies. That's wikilawyering. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even this is giving JB196 more credit than he is due, since WP:REVERT also describes a partial revert (being a reversion of part of the content) and WP:3RR explicitly states that it includes reversion "in whole or in part", which plainly means partial reversion. Plus WP:3RR describes exactly what it means by a revert. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not even the little toe of the foot at the end of the leg. Guy 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'd add that this is not the first occasion that JB seems willing to argue endlessly over technicalities while not quite getting the broader point. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeding Was Only Half the Job and Talk:Xtreme Pro Wrestling for more of what certainly felt to me like wikilawyering in the service of self-promotion. JB, I admire your energy and your attention to detail, but perhaps a little time considering the spirit of WP:5P rather than the particular wording of policy details would benefit all concerned. William Pietri 21:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh! not quite getting the broader point indeed. Once again your assumption of good faith is an example to us all. Guy 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JPgordon, your definition of "wikilawyering" leaves little or no room for discussing whether a policy was enforced right. If I were "Wikilawyering" I would not have asked for clarification from the very beginning; I would have simply said this is why you are wrong. My edits did not constitute a revert as defined by WP:REVERT, but that is beyond the issue. I am willing to forgive whoever put the suspension in place, and I am also willing to accept that my edits may have constituted a suspension, but CERTAINLY not on the basis of violating WP:3RR which I did not do. It is not a violation of WP:AGF to say that A Man in Black did not read my full first post which addresses all this and instead just said that yes, I did violate WP:3RR. JPgordon, which specific part of the article do you think my post falls under? (violating WP:POINT can't be an answer because I did anything but tring to "disrupt Wikipedia by illustrating a point"; on the other hand I expressed a concern that has since been backed up my several other Wikipedians, so don't try that)JB196 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikilawyering?

JB196, read WP:3RR. You violated it. You did not violate the letter of WP:REVERT, but that is no argument to say that you did not violate WP:3RR. Now, what exception, as listed on the 3RR page, do you claim covers your edits? None. You made the same or very similar edits six times in a row, removing lots of material and making the article noticealy poorer in content. That they were not complete reverts as described in WP:Revert is irrelevant as that is explicitly not the definition as used on WP:3RR. Fram 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

blanking via {{cite}}[edit]

It seems quite obvious to me that User:JB196 has changed tactics, seeking to flag his own material with {{cite}} so that it can be "legitimately" deleted. For example, note the diff at Texas Wrestling Academy where the earlier version is solely JB's contribution. I've left him a note that this form of blanking isn't really any more acceptable than outright deletion, as I can't see how this is in any way a good faith attempt to improve the articles at hand. — Lomn | Talk 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a crosspost of my post on this topic from WP:AN at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#JB196, where I started the first topic - JB has changed his modus operandi and is now spamming ^{[citation needed]} tags through articles he himself has written. Examples can be found at [21] [22] (both articles done by JB in which he provided most of the material). JB tends to add numerous templates to articles when he doesn't get what he wants (see: 411mania, Extreme Warfare and Wrestling Spirit). Can an admin please intervene? This stuff has gone on for too long and he has shown no signs of stopping.

I am reposting it here as I was going to start a new topic on JB but see that ones already available. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I forgot to include JB's vendetta against Death Valley Driver Video Review, including two afds 10 days apart and the characteristc spamming of templates. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop deleting the article and recreating it to remove edit-summary vandalism and such, leaving it to someone with the oversight bit? This is playing havok with any attempt at editing the article; I had to spend 3 minutes to commit a save, through 4 edit conflicts and 2 deletions, just to have the history show me that I recreated the page with content "FUCK YOU JIMBO WALES", in a 40kb or so spam. Can we just fully protect the article, or leave aforementioned revisions until a overseer can be called to clean it? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time use WP:RFPP. It is usually the fastest way to get a page protected and is the correct venue for such requests. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not as much a call for protection as much as a call that we don't rapidly recreate and delete a amazingly high-traffic article over having FUCK YOU JIMBO WALES in the revision history. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's right, this isn't about the protection, I was just trying to fix it, but there are too many people editing the artilce to get something like that done, so its left for now. Avilla, I discussed this on the talk page of the article, and its not really appropriate to list it here. Next time just use the talk page, obviously I was watching it. pschemp | talk 22:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when do we delete random offensive stuff anyways? --Conti|✉ 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Conti, I don't think I follow your question. Are you suggesting that we should leave the random offensive stuff? Newyorkbrad 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about removing it from history, not just rolling back the vandalizing edits. Friday (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes total sense, then. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I should've been more clearer, maybe. Yeah, I was talking about deleting things from the history because they are offensive/vandalism. --Conti|✉ 00:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eventually yes if its in the edit summaries when the overeager vandalfighters and vandals and well meaning but misguided editors get bored with it. Right now there are too many edits going on and people freak out when its deleted, even for a second and then do things like put speedy delete tags on it when its recreated because they don't understand what's going on. We'll just wait. pschemp | talk 02:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did check the last few entries on the talk page before I posted it, I guess it flew right by me. Sorry. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are so many misleading entries concerning my case (McMartin Preschool, I am the parent of one of the children). I can't possibly edit them all and I am apparently inept at making major edits. If Wikipedia is to be a credible source of reference for the Internet, these issues need to be reconciled. I can prove my information with documentation and need to add comments or corections to some seriously inaccurate claims. I have tried to do this myself but have been unsuccessful.

Can anyone help, please? Jacque rest of email address removed for the protection of innocents

I strongly suggest that you start by registering an account (free and easy to do), then collect links to the relevant articles using [[article name]] format, and then ask at Help for the specific assistance you need. If you can cite verifiable references from reliable (preferably secondary) sources then there are sure to e editors who will help you with the technicalities of getting the information added in the right tone. Guy 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think the right approach would be for him to comment us on the changes, and one experienced user helps him to understand the wiki and teach him how to make the changes. He has a very valid concern, assuming GF. -- Drini 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jacque, we can get an experienced Wikipedia editor to help work "the system" properly and educate you on the processes and such. If you'd like such help, just say so here. It would be good to sign up for a Wikipedia account to facilitate things (it's free and doesn't require any personal identification associated with it). Georgewilliamherbert 20:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ArjunSingh was indef blocked for sockpuppets, 3rr, POV editing, etc. on Khalistan. His IP address left a message on my talk page calling me an asshole. I left a warning, but I thought I'd bring it up here. Normally I wouldn't consider one instance of personal attacks, especially against myself, to be worthy of a block, but it IS an IP of an indef blocked user. In that case, it may be worth the block (it does not appear to be a shared IP, and all warnings on the talk page relate to Khalistan which was ArjunSingh's article.)⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

blocked for a week. It doesn't seem to be dymanic either. pschemp | talk 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the AMA got a request in about a user making legal threats. I'm refering it to AN/I since it requires SYSOP attention more than it needs AMA attention. The User making the threats is T.C. Craig and the talk page he has made the threat on is United States Postal Service (Look at the last set of comments). Thank you Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him until he withdraws the threats. JoshuaZ 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I will let the case requester know and close the AMA side of it thanks for your help. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice that Son of Peach has been indefinitely blocked for this edit to Jimbo's page and this and your previous block history, and usage of scatological and random text in edit summaries, subsequent to coming off a block, for disruption, nonsensical activity and a troll block. For the record he had submitted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach II, which lasted about half an hour before Jaranda closed it. His posts to Jimbo and my block subsequent to that occurred after the closing. See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach, half a month ago. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh thank heavens. --InShaneee 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shame, he had the potential to actually be a humorous yet productive editor. If only he had learned to be how to be funny and not just stupid. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He also used sockpuppets, abusively. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Arvatov. He just came out of a 1 month block for blatant POV pushing and made this edit. The user has no productive edits as far as I can tell. Please review my block. JoshuaZ 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. No question that there is no reasonable chance this user will become a constructive editor. Good work, Gwernol 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See [23] for this user. Nothing but vandalism. Please advise. KevinPuj 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please report vandals on WP:AIV, after following guidelines on WP:VAND - you must warn the vandal. thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

GoOdCoNtEnT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a message on my talk page concerning the article Mikhail_Lebedev asking me to delete it or undo some edits. When I checked the user's contributions, it seems that he has been leaving same message on various adminstrator's pages. However, he'd also been weighing in on the article's AFD in support of keeping the article. DragonflySixtyseven just blocked him for 1 hour. However, a longer block may need to be implemented. Comments? — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See what he does after an hour, I guess. I also warned him, so if he starts up again, something more lesson-giving should be used. -Splash - tk 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Latly I've been seeing random pages I've never even edited appearing and disapearing (within seconds) on my watchlist. I've also noticed certain pages I have edited (I have my preferences set to watchlist any page I edit) disapearing and not returning. Does anyone know why this is happeneing?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 01:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, probably just a MediaWiki glitch. If it keeps up, you can report it to Bugzilla. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Could you provide a link to Bugzilla, though?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be article page moves. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The page moves usually only mess it up for a minute or two. But I'm talking about completley random pages I've never gone to or edited, like User talk:ReyBrujo. It just showed up on my watchlist, and I don't have a single edit anywhere in the history. By the way, thanks for the link.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article concerned: "List of moments of inertia"

Someone using IP [216.148.248.31 wrongly "corrected" the equation for thick cylinder (second row in the table) on September 5th. I restored the original formula the same day. Yesterday 9-6th the same IP 216.148.248.31 started again.

If this was a registered user, I could explain why the original formula is correct (I am a former physics teacher).

I think WP should restore to the 19:03, 22 August 2006 SwiftBot version, and block the page for a few days.

I do not understand why this page is stigmatized with the "quality standards" label. I think that this page is OK and does not need any clean up.

Regards. LPFR 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Please explain to the unregistered user the formula and apply the corrections to the entry accordingly. I'm uncertain why un/registraion has any bearing on the matter at hand. Thanks in advance for your efforts. Regards, El_C 11:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi admins,

the arts portal (Portal:Arts) has the appearance of vandalism on its top - I looked a little in its history and it seemed non trivial for me to fix. PER9000 08:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I can't see the vandalism. There was some a little while back, but it was also reverted shortly after. Could you perhaps be a little bit more specific about what you're seeing there? Crimsone 08:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw the non-sense like "LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLFuck" in the now blank box titled "the arts portal" in the middle of the top. Now it is gone. When I looked in the history I saw "...is the biggest butt fart in the world" so I thought: this requires a little more than just use a little older version (something I first hoped). Anyway - the possible vandalism in now gone.... PER9000 09:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bellbird keeps removing properly referenced material from this article. Is this violating WP:POINT?--Brownlee 09:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a dispute, which is being properly conducted on the talk page of the article, about whether someone with Jewish ancestry ought to be described as a Jew on Wikipedia if they don't think of themselves as Jewish. --ajn (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter for ANI at this time. JoshuaZ 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I need an admin to step in here please. I have a user constantly attempting to bully me from participating in an article and basically telling me they do not need to provide a source, and can violate WP:OR. Part of this is a content issue, but the user has now gone on to attempt to attack me and my credibility to push their point, including bringing up past incidents I have had with people RfC/ArbCom/Cabal cases in an attempt to discredit me. If you view the page you will see that its for a straw poll and two users are constantly barraging me with attacks. I have asked them simply to provide a source stating the US has commited a terrorist attack in the context of the SOA. Instead the post a source stating that SOA graduates commit terrorist attacks, I explain to them that if the source is not accusing the US directly, its WP:OR to state that the US has commited those acts by then taking another source that says the US funded them, but does not accuse the US of terrorism.

It has gone to the point where one user Travb has gone on to tell otehr not to respond to me when I attempting to address the issue [24] They have attempted to gather people to get me banned or blocked [25] Only after I pointed out the results of the past RfC's did Travb then state they shouldnt keep threatening me. [26] The user has even gone as far as to create a whole section on the straw poll page for the article specifically bringing up my past encounters. [27] I am asking that either the long attack on me personally be removed from the straw poll page, or Travb be forced to make a dispute resolution attempt in the form of an RfC or ArbCom case as he is making a case just in the public to discredit me, without the supervision that would normally accompany an RfC or Arbcom case. The section again is noted here: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Oppose_part_2 --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User Travb has gone on to state things like:

• There will be no consensus on this page, because User:Zer0faults moto is "Don't relent. Don't back off." This is a quote from an ideological opposite, with the same tactics.[28]
• The result of the AfD was no consensus. Once you face this fact, we can start to build this article. [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Zer0faults (talk • contribs)

My two cents: This has been a prolonged month long battle after the AfD. Everyone has strong opinions, but myself and User:Zer0faults have been at the center of the debate. Twice before there has been other users, the person who initiated the AfD, and rootolgy (I believe) who posted comments here asking for assistance.

I am sorry that User:Zer0faults involved an admin. He has been threatening me for weeks that he will call a ANI etc.

"I have a user constantly attempting to bully me from participating in an article" I actively encourage your participation in the article User:Zer0faults. Where do you get the idea that I do not want you to participate in building consensus and helping build a great wikipedia article?

"basically telling me they do not need to provide a source"---"Basically" is the key word. For one long month we have provided ample sources for all of the comments on the talk page. There has been a prolonged battle about wikipedia policy, which User:Zer0faults and other wikiusers have initiated. No sources are accpetable to User:Zer0faults, repeatedly we have provided the sources, and User:Zer0faults refuses them. It has gotten to a point were myself and another user have given up. User:Zer0faults makes several claims on the talk page, but refuses to source his sources. User:Zer0faults has never added a single source to the entire article, he has never provided one source for his claims on the talk page, and yet he expects other wikiusers to continue to provide sources, User:Seabhcan and myself have provided over ten sources on the talk page, none met User:Zer0faults unrealistic standards. In addition, the article has 60 referenced sources. User:Zer0faults has repeatedly said when the article would be unprotected, he would delete referenced sections. This is what initiated the page to be protected in the first place. I ask for page protection to avoid an edit war. I also requested a mediator, who is now mediating the case, started a RfC, and I started a crude straw poll, then actively supported the new official straw poll which User:Zer0faults suggested.

In (more comments in a second---please let me finish.)Travb (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out as what Travb is discussing above is a content issue, the article has many many sources that state an event took place. However in regards to many of the events not a single source makes an allegation of state terrorism by the US, hence the opposition. I guess the root of this problem is that Travb wants to be able to connect the dots and I have been telling him he cannot, this angers him and results in the whoel section I linked above which is bringing up past RfC's?Arbcom/Cabal cases etc in an attempt to discredit me, painting me as someone who cannot be worked with, as his quote calls me. I have also been labeled a deletionist for removing unsourced information. I want to keep this AN/I issue which is the attempted bullying and bringing up past incidents to give other editors a negative view of me and my opinions seperate from the content issue. So I am simpyl asking an admin to look at the sections posted above and make a decision if its appopriate to drudge up a users past conflicts in an attempt to discredit them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have addressed the WP:OR argument at length, in fact, we have argued every single one of User:Zer0faults policy arguments at length. In one month the wikipage has created two huge archives, a huge talk page, and a large straw poll.

"I have also been labeled a deletionist for removing unsourced information" I apologized for this statment, I still await your apology for saying that I was "lying", which you made just today, and that I wasn't assuming good faith, which you stated clear back during the AfD, in fact--Myself and others have repeatedly apologized, and yet you repeatedly refuse to apologize for anything you have said. (more comments in a second---please let me finish.)

"not a single source makes an allegation of state terrorism by the US" This is an an untrue claim. Unfortunatly this is the kind of claim which User:Zer0faults continues to recycle.

Just today after apologizing several times for allegedly misquoting User:Zer0faults, I wrote:

"I will gladly remove any content you find offensive User:Zer0faults all I ask in return is a simple apology for saying that I was lying. Heck, I will remove any content even without an apology. Please let me know what you find so offensive."

User:Zer0faults ignored this offer of comprimise, as he has ignored all offers to comprimise.

User:Zer0faults has threatened me repeatedly, on his talk page, on the article talk page, on the strawpoll. He has demanded that comments be moved to his talk page. I obliged, grudgingly, and then he threatens me with the admin, archives the comments, and wrote on his page: "Do not restart discussions here, all discussions moved to archive are considered closed and will be ignored." When User:Seabhcan agreed with me, and then suggested a ANI (which I later discouraged: "I would ask User:Seabhcan not to threaten Zer0faults with ANI. Lets all try to build a consensus and stop threatening each other." ) User:Zer0faults responded to User:Seabhcan saying: "Dont talk about it do it. I would love to see the results and your evidence you present." User:Zer0faults has threated a ANI for weeks. I continue to ask him to stop threatening me, that it does not help to build consensus. He ignores these requests. I brought up his past ANI past history only after User:Zer0faults refused to stop threatening me. User:Zer0faults is very effective at using wikipedia policy against other wikiusers, instead of attempting to build a consensus, he builds contention and ANI's and mediations, as he is doing right now. Travb (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When you quote me please use the full quote However in regards to many of the events not a single source makes an allegation of state terrorism by the US, hence the opposition. This has been another issue but that is more of a content thing as well. User often shortens quotes and takes them out of context, for instance a quote in the talk page of the article itself he used the following quote:

To the extent (unclear) to which the manual's advice was applied, people have died and a whole style of terror and counter-civilian violence and deception has been condoned.The democratic elements of the Nicaraguan insurgency will now be widely represented -- misrepresented, we believe -- as people who need and use terror to make their way

The bold part highlites what they attempted to use as proof of US terrorism in their source they provided. They however left off end portion that states the subject is in fact "the Democractic elements of the Nicaraguan insurgency". Which is quite misleading. You can further see that the source is stating its unclear of the manuals influence and the article itself never makes an accusations of terrorism by the US. However Travb argues that since the Nicaraguan vs. US court case says the US funded them, that the two sources together prove the US funded terrorists, just to point out the court case says specifically that the US did not order these people, that they were not acting on behalf of the US. So as you see selective quoting has also become an issue, apparently now again being used to discredit me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Travb's assessment. I only recently came into contact with Zer0faults and found him to be rude, disruptive. His overall aim seems to be to impede the work of other editors. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This user is the second user, the one noted above calling for me to be blocked, he was also noted as being an admin participating in the debate and also editing the article during its locked state against concensus. [30] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If your notice does not need the attention of people with administrator access, do not post it here. Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. - I paraphrased the top of this page, feydey 13:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, part of it is a content dispute, however part of it contains a large block of text posted on the straw poll page to discredit me, bringing up my past RfC's etc. That is what I am asking an admin to address, I cannot remove the content myself withuot breaking policy, so I am asking an admin to look into. Please follow the relevant links adn ignore the content issue that Travb is attempting to turn this into. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is happening on this page is not a request for admin assistance, it is an extended fight between you and Travb. Take it to dispute resolution, please. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So its ok to mudsling on talk pages when having differences with an editor. So if we ever haev a difference of opinion I can note all your past RfC's Arbcom cases and other articles you edited to discredit your opinion? Sorry but that is beyond a dispute its a personal attack, the rule states address the content not the editor am I mistaken? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, if this dispute doesn't involve content, why are you quoting content to make your point?

I will abide by User:Feydey's and User:Ngb's assessment, and keep the content dispute on the page, I apologize for draging editors into this argument, I wanted to avoid all of this, but User:Zer0faults continued to threaten me today that he was going to involve an admin. Again, as I wrote on the disputed strawpoll page, before User:Zer0faults started this ANI:

"I will gladly remove any content you find offensive User:Zer0faults all I ask in return is a simple apology for saying that I was lying. Heck, I will remove any content even without an apology. Please let me know what you find so offensive."

In fact, I will take the extraodinary step, and say: User:Zer0faults 'please delete all of the comments you find offensive on the talk page and the strawpoll page.

User:Zer0faults: I apologize for offending you.

As I wrote on the same talk page:

"I would ask User:Seabhcan not to threaten Zer0faults with ANI. Lets all try to build a consensus and stop threatening each other."

You can have the last word on this User:Zer0faults, as you always insist on having.

I am going to bed. I trust no negative action will be taken against me when I am away from the computer and unable to defend myself against User:Zer0faults statments.

As the old saying goes: it takes two too tango (or tangle in this case).

Sorry User:Feydey, User:Ngb for bothering you guys and the other admins, Best wishes.Travb (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

TamilLand has been repeatedly adding the word terrorist to LTTE in an unencyclopedic manner as defined by WP:WTA. He has received warnings for these disruptive edits up to a final warning. Since then, he has continued to disrupt the article. Could someone review the situation and possibly block this user? Addhoc 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm considerably worried regards what is happening with the template:Iranian States. Till yesterday the template as quite logical, included only Afghanistan, Iran and Tadjikistan; but yesterday a new editor, User:Zandweb, has started a massive overhaul of the template, reverting as "vandalism" all opposition, and sending messages to users in which he accuses them of pov-pushing. As can be understood, his attempts to add the template to articles like those of Israel and Hungary is creating much opposition, and furious edit-warring are investing all these changes. Zandweb is also blanking some articles, like Turko-Iranian and when I restored it (my only intervention in the Zandweb-connected disputes), he blanked it again. I'm not a very good admin in dealing with new editors, so I decided to inform the board, hoping one or more of you could try to solve the problems emerging.--Aldux 13:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the name Fact check (talk · contribs) may be confusing to some users, who may assume that the account has some official standing with Wikipedia. Most of this user's contributions have been removing information and the "fact" template from articles. His/her user page only says "See WP:V". SuperMachine 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some sort of special-purpose account. Have you talked to the user to find out who they really are? I agree the name's problematic, but you could/should try talking to them first to see if they understand why this may be a problem. They may just have wanted to split off their fact checking from their normal, high-quality account. *shrug* -- nae'blis 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - originally I just thought dubious assertions were being removed to talk pages... but originally looks like wholesale removal of fact stuff without note (technically fact isn't supposed to be used for dubiuos stuff, but that is a bigger issue). However, user seems to be acting on suggestions posted on talk page at the moment... RN 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A very enthusiastic new user, Neufen01, is creating articles thar are just checklists, and creating "categories" that are just his article names.

Though a welcome note on his talk page gave links to policies/guidelines, he clearly hasn't read them and is just bulling ahead. Editors besides myself have made entreaties on his talk page, to no avail. Maybe a stern admin can leave him a message — as it stands, editors are doing much time-consuming cleanup of indiscriminate lists, cluttered redlink categories, etc. Thanks for any help. --Tenebrae 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since your last message to him. If he doesn't try to address the problems, let us know here. I don't have any problem blocking him for a week or so to confine him to his talk page while things are sorted out. Syrthiss 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope I'm being more helpful than harsh. --Tenebrae 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently, I have been told over and over again that many things about Wikipedia policy and culture were not as I thought them to be. For instance, a user recently noticed a redirect which seemed to equate two things, was told that they were different, and made a change to try to address this. Rather than this being, as I thought, a good faith effort to clarify things, I am told that it was instead "embarassing", "utterly ignorant", and 'inserting nonsense into articles'... and further that to say these things to someone about their contributions is not "incivil at all". Also that saying someone is "almost pathological", a "bad editor" (edit summary), and that incivility is "vandalism" are "definately not NPA" [sic].

If I am truly reading Wikipedia's policies so very wrongly then please tell me so. Then let us get down to the important work of updating the policy wording to make it clear that it is "entirely appropriate" to say that a user is "being a ridiculous petulant child". We should list all the wonderful ways in which this will end conflict and lead to more positive contributions. Let us then also explain the myriad benefits to the task of building an encyclopedia inherent in speedy deleting "mini-stubs" like these three before they can grow into articles like this.

For the record... despite the sarcasm I am quite serious. If these things are the community consensus then tell me I am wrong and let's update the policies to say so. Far better that than having them continue to allow the impression that admins are enjoined from such behaviour depite our (apparent) widespread self-agreement to the contrary. --CBD 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One-sentence microstubs generally don't offer enough context for expansion. Please don't do that, CBD.

Evertype was being obnoxious and rather rude. Please don't do that, Evertype. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they weren't my stubs, but... I disagree. Note the whole way in which they have expanded after being undeleted. WP:STUB says it has to be at least a dictionary definition. If that is no longer true (more is required) we should update it. --CBD 22:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a hard and fast rule, nor should it be, really. Given that it's an issue that reasonable adults can disagree about calmly (I don't feel any particular urge to describe CBD as embarassing, ignorant, childish, or whatever), there's no reason for Evertype to be as incivil as he has been over this or any related issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, the most interesting part of the recent events is that you have almost invariably labeled anything an admin has said to Tobias as a personal attack while excusing his most outrageous behavior. That, and your interpretation of policy does not appear to match the community consensus. If you feel that we should redefine the WP:CSD, we should work it out in the appropriate venue. For this specific instance, the appropriate venue is not in the user talk of a blocked, disruptive, abusive user while undermining appropriate use of admin tools by your colleagues. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, most of what you have just said is clearly untrue. I have not labeled the vast majority of things said to Tobias by admins as personal attacks (go ahead, count 'em :]), I have never excused his behaviour, WP:CSD and WP:STUB already conform to what I am saying and indeed would need to be rewritten to countenance A1 deletion of those articles, and the actions of my colleagues in this case have been far from appropriate - as evidenced by the fact that most of those nasty comments above are from admins. You may have a point about venue, but as my primary focus here is on whether policy really 'does not apply to admins' (as seems to me the argument made) I thought this was the best spot for it. --CBD 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I agree that stubs like "The Gaelic script should not be confused with Ogham (ISO code Ogam)," which was one you cited above, should be deleted. It's incredibly lazy to create a stub like that; it may grow, but what if it doesn't? Best to get rid of it and then whoever is prepared to write a decent-sized stub can start from scratch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly that's the one stub which actually wasn't deleted. I agree that one lacked context, but I can't agree that it was better to leave 'Gaelic script' as a redirect to 'Ogham' given the fact that they ARE different. The user didn't say more than that, because that's all he knew. Still an improvement, and providing the ISO code verified the difference between the two. --CBD 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs on WP:ANI ... have you guys tried the mediation process? This sounds like a content dispute. --Cyde Weys 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. All of those stubs are now healthy articles. I'm disputing the claim that it is "entirely appropriate" for admins to say that users are "being a ridiculous petulant child", "almost pathological", "utterly ignorant", et cetera. Personally, I think that's abuse and harassment. That the same admins were deleting and belittling the user's valid contributions is a related problem. But hey, whatever... apparently it's all good. Admins can abuse users as much as they like because it isn't "incivil at all". --CBD 23:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some of the respect you seem to be wanting from fellow admins may have been lost because of your own past actions. You have a little bit of a reputation of siding with trolls against fellow admins. If you want support from your fellow admins, maybe you should support them a bit more too. Now obviously what Evertype was doing was wrong (and he should probably be blocked for it) ... I just thought you might want to understand that what you're going through right now, with admins siding with this obvious abuser against you, is exactly what a lot of us feel like when you side with someone like Massiveego, just to pick a recent example. --Cyde Weys 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, what you're suggesting is a great example of pathologically harmful behavior - the idea that we should support each other's actions on the you-scratch-my-back principle. This is detrimental to producing a quality encyclopedia- we should judge each situation on its own merits, nto on the basis of which side our friends are on. Friday (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's well said, Friday. No number of additional wrongs make a right, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not "pathologically harmful", it's a sensible corollary of WP:AGF. Presumably administrators have good sense or else they wouldn't have passed RFA. There's no such barrier to entry on regular users. So in a conflict between a regular user (especially when the user is acting trollish) and an administrator, it doesn't make sense to automatically assume that the admin is guilty of admin abuse. I still haven't heard a good explanation of CBD on why he jumped all over the admins who were dealing with that Massiveego RFA troll. And by the way, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is actually a primate evolutionary explanation of altruism. --Cyde Weys 00:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because... calling him a "troll" is a personal attack, he was never warned as strongly urged by blocking policy, his block was for a week rather than 24 hours as suggested by blocking policy for a first block, and the actual 'disruption' caused by the action was neglible in comparison to... for example, unprotecting the main page, making silly changes to user pages, et cetera after receiving numerous warnings not to... things which garnered much shorter blocks despite prior warnings, repeated violations, and considerably greater disruption. --CBD 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But he was warned. He was warned many times, both in responses to individual votes on his RFA, by communication on WP:BN from a bureaucrat, and from me on his talk page, when I urged him to stop being disruptive regarding his RFA activities. And even if he hadn't been warned, which he very much was, I don't agree with the idea that we always have to warn someone before taking action against them, even in especially obvious or egregious cases of trolling, disruption, vandalism, etc. To use a real-life analogy ... "Ohh I'm sorry officer, I was speeding but you didn't give me a warning first" doesn't work. You do the crime, you do the time ... Cyde Weys 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you're the second admin today I've seen compare admins to cops. I thoguht we were janitors, not cops, and there's the whole thing about blocks being preventative, not punitive. Analogies to crime and punishment aren't really helpful, it turns out. We really ought to be alert that we don't slip into a Stanford prison experiment scenario. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

On second reading, I can see how you might interpret that as an analogy between admins and police officers, but rest assured that I do not think in those terms. The analogy I was making was with the person who is breaking the rules, not with the person enforcing them. The analogy could just as easily work this way: "Oh, I'm sorry for smearing shit all over the bathroom walls Mr. Janitor, you didn't first give me a warning not to though." Better analogy? --Cyde Weys 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, second one today, so it struck me. I know of very little excuse for bypassing warnings, and none at all for forgoing respect, courtesy, and treating people with dignity. Treating someone like a criminal is the most effective way to get them to act like a criminal. (This is CBD's point below.) It's really just about setting up expectations - expecting people to rise to the good, mature, level-headed example you set is a much better approach than expecting them to screw up and "earn a block". (I used to work in criminal corrections in the US, so I know a little bit about what doesn't work.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Now I'm sure this doesn't belong on WP:ANI. Any suggestions on where it does belong? /dev/null maybe? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Making one sentence stubs is not a good idea. Making personal attacks is also wrong. Yay. Can we go back to editing the encyclopedia now? JoshuaZ 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> I'm sorry, but it is obvious that most of you are not even reading the passage above / clicking on the links. While there have been a few nasty comments aimed my way that is not at all what I am on about. I am not 'looking for support/respect from my fellow admins'. I'm quite egotistical enough without feeding that by having people respect me. What I am looking for is my fellow admins to stand up and say they really believe that it is appropriate for them (not Evertype) to do these things. People have said that the above comments are "obnoxious", "rather rude", from an "obvious abuser", and "should probably be blocked"... always attributing them to Evertype. What you are missing is that only two of those links are from Evertype. The people writing the nasty 'blockworthy' comments ARE the admins. And they insist that THEY aren't doing anything wrong. That's my point. Nevermind... people agree the comments were wrong. I'll just start blocking my 'fellow admins' when they act in ways that get regular users blocked. --CBD 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It's pretty silly for the administrative community to adopt a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude to the rest of the community as far as civil interaction goes. If we're not more accountable for our manners than the hoi polloi, then we're pretty crappy admins. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally just think it's a bit hypocritical. I've seen you say some pretty bad stuff about administrators before, but when it happens to you, you come on here asking for support. You're not totally innocent on this issue. In an ideal world everyone would be nice to everyone else regardless of past actions. In the real world, you give as you get. --Cyde Weys 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, yes we can archive or move this or whatever. I should have spelled out the issues more clearly, but I've got my answer. Admins violating civility... not supported by community consensus. --CBD 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read all of those diffs you linked to, I don't think any of what the admins said was outrageously incivil. You might be overreacting a tad. Wikipedia is a rough-and-tumble world, and admins deal with trolls on a daily basis. Working in a tough environment tends to make one tough as well; those who don't become tough, don't last long. --Cyde Weys 00:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll put you down as a vote for saying someone is "being a ridiculously petulant child" is "entirely appropriate" then. --CBD 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just that compared to all of the things that you could say about someone if you really hated them and really wanted to say something mean about them, "ridiculously petulant child" doesn't even crack the top one thousand. It may even be true. If these words are inflaming tensions more than resolving them then another tack should be taken, obviously, but I think you're overreacting a bit. --Cyde Weys 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. It is admittedly the biggest 'hot button' issue I have. I just find it horrendously wrong for admins to simultaneously be incivil to a user and block that user for incivility. It reminds me of baiting a bear in a trap... you know they have a temper and you just keep tormenting them and then say, 'ah... we had to put him down, he was completely out of control'. Who wouldn't be, with that kind of abuse. We are supposed to be better... not more privileged. --CBD 00:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking to Cyde here, he is one of the admins probably most complained about by the average user. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He actually posted a negative comment on my Arbcom after I stated he shouldnt file AfD's in retaliation against users ... perhaps you need a different audience. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, this is an excellent example of a person you shouldn't side with against admins. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Against admins, you are starting to sound like a petu ... nevermind, you will just prove there are double standards. PS there is no cabal you really should state things like "side with against admins" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(DOUBLE - edit conflict) I know who he [Cyde] is. We've tangled before. And I supported his RfA anyway. We disagree (rather strongly), but we discuss it and maybe agree to something better. I'm pretty sure that just sniping about past problems isn't likely to produce much forward momentum though. I hope to change the culture, not 'take down' individuals. --CBD 00:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you here, I'll stop bringing up these past conflicts. I just want you to know what it looks like from pschemp's view: she's dealing with an obviously problem user, and you show up and pretty much criticize her rather than the person she's dealing with. That's what leads to admin strife and burnouts ... admins get the feeling that trolls are being given more respect than they are, that some people would rather try to perpetually rehabilitate banned problem users than keep their good users around by keeping the problem users out. I think you'd get the best response if you left a very polite note to try to be a bit more civil. What's happening now isn't helping anyone, though. --Cyde Weys 01:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean all CB is asking for is people to be civil even to trolls. Whats so hard about not insulting people. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The only time I used the words were when I put trolling in the block log of people, because I need to give an explanation of why I do a block, and I quote myself when I reported it to ANI (for Masssiveego, Son of a Peach, The Mad Bomber). Else I wouldn't use it to avoid personal attacks. Can someone get a euphemism? CAn I use teh word wind-up for a euphemism, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about 'disruptive provocation'? --CBD 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, are you saying I'm not gentle enough with the 'tough enough to survive' the "tough environment" folks? I must be much more of an ogre than I thought. :] Seriously though, I take the point... nobody likes criticism. But I disagree very much with the view that we should be 'defining problem users' and then 'working to keep them "out"'. Entirely the wrong mindset. That's what leads to treating them badly and, IMO, often causing them to be 'problem users'. If a user is treated well and goes into meltdown / acts disruptive I have no problems booting them. If they get nasty comments and other questionable treatment it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy where we the admins have created our own enemy to fight where there needn't have been one. --CBD 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"If a user is treated well and goes into meltdown / acts disruptive I have no problems booting them." Please review my interaction with Tobias, the incident that started this whole thing. I was civil, I made suggestions on how to avoid the situation, I encouraged him at every step, and I treated him well. Your actions do not match your statement above, please clarify. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was already an ongoing problem/dispute with other admins when you came into it, and I've explained my other concerns with your actions previously. --CBD 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"CBD, the most interesting part of the recent events is that you have almost invariably labeled anything an admin has said to Tobias as a personal attack while excusing his most outrageous behavior." I'd like you to read that again, and go back and look at your own edits, and look at them objectively. Because, to be perfectly frank, I think that's a fairly accurate description. I understand that you don't feel you were "excusing" his behavior, but I think your actions speak pretty loudly here. Nandesuka 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD I am getting a strong impression of you as someone who is getting single-mindedly obsessed with the alleged faults and mistakes of fellow admins. You're losing your sense of proportion here. Sure, we may sometimes speak more harshly than would be perfect or impose a block that should have been shorter, or impose a block that another reasonable person might not impose. Overall, however, the people you keep trying to undermine are doing a good job in trying circumstances. Metamagician3000 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The other point that is getting lost here is that this noticeboard is a place where admins discuss incidents frankly with each other. Policies such as NPA are not meant to stop that happening. They are primarily meant to stop editors provoking each other when addressing each other in discussions of the actual content of the encyclopedia. Once a matter of conduct gets here, or is being discussed between admins in their talk pages, i.e. when we are trying to sort out problematic conduct in discussions amongst ourselves, I don't think those policies should apply in the same way. There is still good reason to be moderate in our language, of course, but I think we should call a troll a troll. Metamagician3000 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok... Nandesuka, I have said ad nauseum that I do not support/excuse/whatever Tobias's incivility. I have spent considerable time pointing out these problems to him politely (that would be without calling his good faith efforts "inserting nonsense"), citing the applicale policies, et cetera. I'm sorry, but to me that all seems to be 'if someone says I am wrong then they must be saying the other person is right'. No. Incomprehensible to me. Both are wrong. I will acknowledge that I have been stronger in my criticism of the admins than of Tobias... that's true, but does not mean what you seem to take it for. Only that I feel Tobias was already getting MORE than enough criticism. Metamagician3000, when the people 'doing a good job in trying circumstances' are outright denying that Wikipedia's civility and personal attack policies apply to them I disagree that they are 'doing a good job'. I believe that, while well intentioned, they are making matters worse. Anyone who can add two and two knows that badgering and belittling a user who responds badly to normal criticism is going to cause them to explode... so why do it? To make them explode? Cause disruption and then block for it and 'get rid of the bad user'? No. Not kosher. It inevitably turns people against Wikipedia when they didn't need to be. It directly contravenes our policies and just flies against common sense. We shouldn't be creating enemies out of friends. I'm sorry that this upsets some admins, but I feel their efforts need to be undermined when they are clearly leading to turning a well-intentioned contributor into one with a seething hatred of Wikipedia. We are slowly building the ranks at 'Wikipedia Review' and the like for no good purpose. As to 'calling a troll a troll'... great, so when someone decides you are a troll, a 'ridiculous petulant child', or whatever else... they get to call you that, right? Or only admins get to decide that someone is a troll and call them that? Because being nasty like that is good for Wikipedia. Helps to settle arguments. Prevents the user from feeling that people are unfairly insulting them. Just better all around for everyone. Or not? --CBD 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, when you write "I will acknowledge that I have been stronger in my criticism of the admins than of Tobias." and "I'm sorry that this upsets some admins, but I feel their efforts need to be undermined (snip)", I feel myself frustrated because I can't see how your actions are designed to strengthen the project. Also, you said that you jumped in to defend him BECAUSE there was a group of people that was disagreeing with him. If you examine the history, you'll find that he personally escalated it until there were a bunch of people involved. Just because there is clear consensus against the actions of one person does not mean he has been "ganged up" against, sometimes it actually means that the person in question is wrong. This is what happened here, and you decided to back the "underdog" without regard as to whether his behavior was appropriate or not. You say so yourself in the quotes above. This is not kosher. Perhaps you have "lost it", as the title of this section asks, but "it" is defined as "a sense of perspective and an understanding of what does and doesn't help the project". Please reconsider your position on these matters. There appears to be a clear consensus against your actions so far. If you feel that the policies that have led to this are improper, then perhaps it's time to suggest change, but that will happen in Village Pump and other appropriate venues, not the talk pages of a blocked, disruptive, abusive user (as I said earlier). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Chairboy, sorry but in turn I can't see how your actions "are designed to strengthen the project". What was the benefit to the project in deleting a completely valid stub (valid as defined at WP:STUB anyway)? How is providing no information to the user "better" than the 'worthless' explanation of exactly what it is? How did insulting Tobias (in return to his) after deleting his (to me) improvements help to avoid conflict and improve the encyclopedia? Please explain it to me. I could maybe see it if the subject were not notable... or the stub didn't explain what it was... or... something. But seriously... give me any explanation for why Wikipedia was better off without that. Because I cannot see one at all. As to 'consensus'... you have now told me that there is a 'clear consensus' against defending civility, insults made by admins being incivil, and in favor of deleting valid stubs. I came here to check whether that was accurate and... in direct contrast to what you say... I think I've seen a clear concensus that it is not. IF there really were a clear consensus for admins calling users names then ok... let's write it up in the policies and I swear by every Name mankind has ever used in the search for the Infinite that I will abide by it no matter how much I disagree. Until then, perhaps others could abide by what they say now? --CBD 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, returning to the question at hand, I will once again ask you to take a deep breath, and look at your own edits the way you are looking at everyone else's. Seriously. Let's take a minute and assume that everything you're saying about everyone else is true. Forget about our edits. Forget about whether what you did and wrote was "justified". Just read your own edits. Can you actually say with a straight face that you're not behaving just as poorly here? Because I think the accusations you are throwing around happen to describe your behavior just as well as they describe the people you are accusing, if we stop paying attention to "whose side" one is advocating for. Nandesuka 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not recall the incident where I called you a "troll" repeatedly. Where I said that Pschemp was "being a ridiculous petulant child". Where I described Chairboy as having an "almost pathological victim complex". If I have done these things, then I have been "behaving just as poorly here" and I apologize profusely. I thought that I was criticizing your actions where they seemed to run counter to policy as I understand it and what seems to me best for Wikipedia, in an effort to get you to see how they are harmful and stop... not engaging in personal insults which have no possible beneficial effect. If I have said things which were clearly NOT intended to get people to behave better OR if there is some positive benefit for avoiding future conflict in comments like those above I very much welcome an explanation of such. --CBD 11:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to pretend that only the precise words that you made in your original report "matter," then I think you're still being unreasonable, and still aren't actually reading your own words the way you read other people's. I already said that we could stipulate that everyone you criticize is as evil as you'd like to pretend that they are, for purposes of discussion. Despite that, your own language was still completely unacceptable.

I could point out every diff, but that defeats the point of the exercise. I don't need to convince anyone else that you've been fairly rude throughout; it's clear that most of the people here do, in fact, already disapprove of your behavior. The person who needs to understand is you. And so for a third time, I'll suggest that you read your own edits and judge them as you have judged others. If you can do that, then there's hope that next time you won't "lose it". Nandesuka 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading this back and forth it sounds like Nandesuka just wants CB to acknowledge he too has done wrong, which he has and apologized for, not just those specific words, but basically anything he said out of line. He is now asking admins to be more civil, to obide by the same policies that guide the standard users. It seems others agree that troll has become overused, is not very civil and not very specific. I really do not see why an admin would feel the need to become uncivil to a user, oddly if a user is uncivil to me and I lash back at them, then an admin will not excuse me, but take us both as being uncivil. That same policy or rule or general idea is what should stop admins from then behaving the same way. I really dont see how anyone can argue that admins should be allowed to be uncivil toward standard users here. Its almost like advocating politicians being allowed to walk around spitting on the public. Admins are made admins by the votes of the many, they are here to protect the encyclopedia, not insult the people who participate on it.

I really cannot see any benefit to insulting a user before kicking them out basically, are you not just stoking the flame to make them want to vandalize more at that point? making them want to continue their fight to get the last word to have the final say. In all I really can't see anyone at all that participates in Wikipedia advocating admins being able to insult users to themselves on Wikipedia space or IRC or any other medium where Wikipedia information is being discussed outside of their own private lives. Sorry for the book. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, do you want me to say that I have been harshly criticizing some of my fellow admins? I have and I apologize for that... again. However, assumption of good faith prevents me from believing that you really can't see the difference between strongly arguing with someone with the intent of convincing them that their actions are wrong... and making statements which cannot have any result except to make the person they are about feel bad. Yes, criticizing people can and usually does make them feel bad... but it differs from insulting them in that is not its only purpose. I could certainly have been much 'gentler' in my criticism, and I think have been over the past many months. However, it has come to the point where some admins now say that insulting users is not merely an 'acceptable lapse', but actually "appropriate" and not "incivil at all"... and I'm sorry for my intensely negative reaction to that, but I believe that it absolutely must be resisted in the strongest terms possible. --CBD 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I want you to recognize that when you act a certain way, you describe it as "harsh criticism," and when another admin acts the exact same way, you describe it as "abuse." Then I want you to extend the same amount of good faith to your fellow admins that you seem to extend to yourself. Nandesuka 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And when you can show that I have acted "the exact same way" I will recognize that. But you can't. Because I haven't called anyone a troll, or a ridiculous petulant child, or a bad editor, or any of the numerous personal attacks which some other admins make on a regular basis. Ever. And I'm a well known argumentative hot-head... just ask various admins :]. Go ahead... I invite you. Cite where I have called someone nasty names rather than criticizing bad actions they have taken. Yes, other admins have also criticized bad actions... and that IS "the exact same" thing as I have been doing. But personal attacks? Name calling? No. Not the same. --CBD 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one can say I didn't try to help you. Nandesuka 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break[edit]

Omg! After repeatedly being called a liar for many days for doing something nice for Tobias while he ignored all my explanations, and though I had ignored his previous gross incivility, I finally said something blunt (though true). Yes indeed, after the continual harassment I endured from him, and the constant defense of his actions by CBD (who never once told him to stop the accusations), I did indeed make one statement that was not sugar coated and sticky sweet. Am I perfect? No. Have I been harrassing and abusing this poor editor? Hardly. pschemp | talk 03:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I met pschemp at Wikimania, and she doesn't seem like the kind of person to attack someone without good reason. --Cyde Weys 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are "good" reasons to attack people. Do tell. Please... explain how this is beneficial to Wikipedia. I think attacking users with insults and questionable actions (and no... definitely not just one) is always harmful to Wikipedia. If there are positive benefits to it please say what they are. I'm willing to learn. --CBD 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, CBD, but I think it's obvious that admins naturally have a degree of latitude when they are discussing the conduct of problem users among themselves. Of course we have to do so in good faith and to exercise a degree of commonsense moderation. But it is a completely different situation from when a user (who may happen to be an admin) insults someone over a matter of content and thereby escalates a content dispute into personal animosity. To deny this is getting very close to wiki-lawyering IMHO. It's putting the letter of policy over what policy is all about. So I'm not impressed by such examples as an admin referring to Massive ego as a troll during frank discussion of his conduct among admins right here on this very board. Such frank discussion of conduct will always take place here. That's not to excuse everything ever done by any admin, but if you keep using that sort of thing as an example I'll keep thinking that you're losing your sense of perspective. Metamagician3000 03:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Woudl this permit me when posting a AN/I report to call the target of the report a troll and petulant child etc.? This seemed like a formal place where complaints are gonig to be addressed and I would think everyone would attempt to remain civil here. Oddly it paints a bad picture if this is all a front and admins are behind the scenes on IRC or whereever calling users trolls etc. The idea that admins should be able to insult users amongst themselves is quite offensive. There is this running joke about their being no cabal, but Cyde talks about admins sticking together and you talk about admins being able to violate NPA when talking to eachother about other users. I am not saying there is a cabal, but its obvious you are almsot advocating that you can insult people simply because you do not agree with their actions. I agree with the post further down the word troll has lost most meaning and really should be used by an admin anyway even for the sake of clarity. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

'Policy is all about' allowing admins to call regular users names and torment them? Because that is good for Wikipedia. Makes the user less likely to be angry. Reduces conflict. Et cetera. C'mon. No. No it isn't. Policy is all about ALL of us remaining civil. Not just the users. That's not 'wikilawyering on the letter of the policy'... that's the bloody central core of the policy. --CBD 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have a lot of petulant children on Wikipedia. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If only you understood that whenever someone insults someone else they are thinking just that. You condoning that attitude is basically saying as long as I believe the insult, then its ok to give it. Oddly enough when most people are at their real jobs and feel a negative way about someone, they do not insult them, they work around that insult by stating the fault etc. Its just a matter of acting like an adult honestly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 08:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give it a rest, Zer0faults. El_C 08:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Um no, is that point not valid. The arguement hnow is sometimes they are what we call them, but that is silly because of course you think they are that, or you wouldnt call them it. The truth is in being an adult you learn not to run around and insult others, its part of growing up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I just think this discussion has outlived its usefulness. El_C 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because this is actually something that affects many users here, and many of them are not taking part in this admin dominated discussion because of its location. There have been many times when suers have complained about admins actions and the reaction is just that the admin was "overzealous". However users maknig similar comments would face a block or repeated action would call for a ban. I actually think this discussion should be opened to a larger group of people that participate here. I have been insulted myself by admins many times. Its almost like baiting people, you call them a troll, they tell you to F off, then you block or ban them for being uncivil, the admin gets told they were overzealous but the user was violating WP:NPA. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Afterword: It would sit more easily if the criticism were of the action rather than the person. "Repeated provocation" is preferable to labelling the individual as a "troll". This also conforms to WP:NPA, so sets a good example to other editors. "Trolling" is a word that can be used for any action that someone finds disagreeable and has become debased. More precision would be useful. This is a general observation and not directed at any particular individual. Tyrenius 09:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Make your case[edit]

Various people have said that it is 'ok' for admins to say that users are "trolls", "being a ridiculous petulant child", and the like either in general or at least 'when in discussion amongst themselves' on AN/I, admins' talk pages, et cetera. This view is what I was looking for when I brought this to AN/I. I want you to explain to me how this is better for Wikipedia. Or at the least how it does no harm. Does calling a user a "troll" make them more likely to be civil and abide by policies... or less? Can anyone cite any positive benefits to doing so. Because if not... then this all just comes down to, ' we are allowed to be incivil and mean and petty... and they are not '. So please, make your case. Explain how this practice does not hurt Wikipedia. --CBD 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of dead horses around this week. Metamagician3000 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, this is a straw man. The right question is not is incivility OK, because it's not! The right question is, do admins have to be perfect in order for you to be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and not act in ways that undercut admins when they are trying to deal with disruptive users? Because I think a number of people are saying that you give the appearance of not doing that, and that while it is a good thing to acknowledge imperfection, that you sometimes do so in a way that makes it a lot more difficult for other admins to do what is needful. No one is perfect. Long time contributors sometimes lose it. Even admins lose it, sometimes... heck, I myself lost it for no good reason yesterday and undercut the work of another admin (out of view, for the most part, of most disruptive users but still). But that does not give vandals and trolls a free pass and it does not make it wrong to call a vandal a vandal, a troll a troll or a POV warrior a POV warrior. Please, reconsider your approach. Because to a certain extent, it IS us against them. Without disregarding the need to assume good faith barring other evidence, sometimes it is. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is more then a personal issue. If you read above admins are basically advocating that they can be incivil under certain circumstances. The problem I think you are glossing over is, a troll is a very subjective comment, and does not help to call a user you feel is being disruptive a troll. The very idea you call them that makes you feel they are just that, however that stands for any personal insult, they are often given under the idea the person feels they are just that. Further it is never admins against users and perpetuating this is just further driving a rift between what admins feel they can do and cannot. Cases are to be evaluated on a case by case basis, not an admin vs user basis. Its quite commical to hear admins joke about an admin cabal against users, but you are basically advocating there is a user cabal against admins. Also I dont think CB is advocating to let people vandalise Wikipedia, just simply that instead of insulting them, you state the events and let it be. Personally insulting people just brings you to their level and if anything is just going to anger them. If someone is a vandal do you think insulting them is going to make them walk away or just use a proxy? Since there is no good in insulting people, perhaps the idea should be that noone can insult anyone else, and that users and admins should be equally understood to sometimes "lose it" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. When I have moderated forums in the past, we were always very careful to be a paragon of civility. It sets a dangerous example for anyone to be incivil towards another. Matters are not helped by wikipedia's 'soft security', which favours people viewing all policies as being not that important and open for debate. This makes statements such as 'troll' (defined as encouraging others to be uncivil and to do personal attacks) hard to accurately define within the wikipedia system. But yes, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are supposed to apply to everybody, with no exceptions. LinaMishima 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is sadly not a straw man. Indeed, you just made the very claim I described... 'it is not wrong to call a troll a troll'. I'm saying it is wrong. Further, the policy says it is. So... if consensus has really changed such that we believe this ISN'T wrong, as multiple admins keep saying, let's update the policy to explain why it is a good thing. Instead of "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly" we could have, "Accusatory comments such as 'George is a troll', or 'Laura is a bad editor' can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly - UNLESS they are being said by an admin, in which case they are merely the truth and will no doubt serve to increase harmony and productive editing." Or whatever wording you prefer. But if you can't actually make a case for why 'it isn't wrong' then I think it would be a very good thing for Wikipedia if admins stopped doing it and saying it is perfectly acceptable. I'm all for 'people are human and make mistakes which should be forgiven'... but that isn't the claim you are all making. You are saying, 'this is not wrong'. I have no problem with, 'oops I messed up, sorry'. I do have one with 'it is perfectly acceptable for me to call a user a ridiculous petulant child'. --CBD 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No it IS a straw man because you're on a tangent. This NEEDS to be about your taking this to the point where it undercuts admins trying to make improvements by removing disruptive users. If policy needs to be changed to clarify that it's OK to say "you are acting like a ridiculous petulant child" when the user is in fact acting that way (is there any reasonable person here who does not think Tobias has acted that way in the past) then I suggest policy be changed. Policy lags practice anyway. But your own actions in these matters are starting to themselves verge on disruption. I sent you am mail pointing out furtehr things that Tobias was doing, asking you (pursuant to our agreement) that you speak to him about it, and what I got back was that I was being naughty in describing what he was doing. I suspect you're far from the norm now, CBD. Please reconsider your actions. A spade sometimes IS a spade and it is not useful to circumlocute TOO much. A disruptive user sometimes IS an adversary of the encyclopedia and it is not useful to deny that. Given everything else equal, you should presume that the Admin is acting in good faith, and the user acting in disruptive ways ... is not. Or perhaps one of us misunderstands how adminship works. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How is someone suppose to assume an admin is acting in good faith when they are running around breaking policy in the process? Further the issue is still the same, are you stating admins can insult people and violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as long as they are doing it in a good faith effort to stop a user from being disruptive? Can a user then take this action since WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL do not point out this case of admin exclusion. I still do not see the point in calling someone you feel to be a troll, a "troll", what purprose does it serve other then to insult and probably infuriate the user in question? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better example of why its best to just not insult people. After the smoke clears if the admin ends up having been wrong, isnt it best you simply said this user acted inappropriately or against WP:NPA then stating they are a "petulant child"? If I went about calling you this from today on everytime you got into a disagreement with a user, would you be insulted by it? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What Lar said. Besides, I'm getting sick of what seems more and more like obsessive wikilawyering. Yes, we do want a very high standard of civility to prevail when people are discussing encyclopedia content. Admins should be exemplary in that respect. Yes, we'd like that high standard to apply everywhere on the site as far as possible. Yes, as admins, we should be as gentle and polite to other users as we can. After all, we were chosen partly because we showed some ability to be civil when involved in difficult situations (at least that is a criterion that I felt I had to meet). But as admins we also have to be able to make decisions not just about encyclopedic content but about users. We should always be as polite as we reasonably can, but there are some places/situations where we need to be able to discuss other users frankly, because we just do have the responsibility to make, test, and sometimes defend judgments about them. In those situations it is best to call a troll a troll or state frankly that someone seems to be behaving like a petulant child. Part of what is required of us is the good judgment to know when such frankness is appropriate and when it is not, but this board is one place where it is more likely to be appropriate than other places on the site. CBD can complain about this forever, but it won't change as long as we have those responsibilities, and we could not carry out our responsibilities properly without that degree of leeway. Any written policy has to be interpreted and applied with regard to that reality. Metamagician3000 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly saying that you need to be able to call someone a putalant child on this board to be able to work effectively? Is there a reason you feel petulant child is the most effective and detailed way of stating what they are doing? Can users when discussing issues call admins petulant children ni the same frank manner in which you feel you can call other users petulant children? If so I think I will be participating here more often to guage the level on necessary incivility that takes place in such a frank environment. Oddly I would think this place would be less casual in terms of acceptable language as here more then anywhere a user needs to be able to understand an admin and understand them in detail. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is something interesting, one of the definitions of petulant is easily irritated or annoyed, considering they are easily irritated, wouldnt it be best not to insult them? here is another one moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, esp. over some trifling annoyance, so we have someone easily irritated and annoyed and impatient, and they get insulted for being so. Not to skip the fact that callnig them a child is its own NPA violation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave CBD the explanation he wanted, but really my dead horse comment was enough. If anyone still doesn't understand the reality of it, I can't help them any further. I feel I've been clear. Metamagician3000 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In many circumstances giving warning messages to admins or other users after they understandably express frustration at incorrigible editors both a) undermines the admins and b) helps contribute to user-burn out. Furthermore, in a few cases telling a user precisely what they are acting like has helped get them to stop. This does not of course make such messages entirely acceptable. What I do when I wish to remind an admin or long-term user of NPA in these circumstances is send them a politely worded email. This seems to have most of the benefits of formal warnings without the associated problems. JoshuaZ 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i will simply give them formal NPA warnings form now on as that is the most appropriate route, didnt spiderman say "with great power comes great responcibility?", nope that was his grandpa actually. We are so worried about admin burnout, but is there really a lack of admins or people wanting to be admins? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think such things are entirely unacceptable to be said publically. Indeed, I believe the same applies to warnings in most cases. but to change that would need a lot of changes to wikipedia itself :/ And "admin burnout" when an admin is willfully acting in a manner not becoming of one with responsibility is not something we should be worrying about, really. LinaMishima 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with people helping me be a better admin and a better contributor, if the message is delivered in the right place, and I think CBD's civility campaign is fine enough, here. In fact I've complained about lack of civility in others here before myself. Where I have a problem is when an uninvolved admin comes in to the middle of an administrative action, and by complaining about the civility of the admins trying to handle the situation, undercuts those admins, giving the user reason to continue to act like a prat. (Yes, that's right, users sometimes actually do act like prats). CBD, please stop inserting yourself into administrative actions and undercutting the admins on the front line. If you must give advice, do so in a way that doesn't undercut the admin who is in the middle of trying to fix things. It would be greatly appreciated by myself, and I suspect others. And Zer0faults, I'm not really seeing your contributions to this thread as in any way useful, I am afraid. Paraphrasing: "Don't annoy the easily annoyed" ??? Um, no. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea is not insult people at all, but if you feel someone is being a petulant child, then you are acknowledging they are easily annoyed and so insulting them really doesnt seem very smart does it? Perhaps you dont think I am helping because you rather keep this limited to CB, but its really a bigger issue as admins are stating they have a right to insult non-admin contributors, or anyone for that matter. There are no exceptions in the policy for admins that need to insult people so they do not get burn out, however that works. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, when an admin reaches the point of, as you say, 'trying to remove a user' I believe that admin needs to be 'undercut'... because they are actively working for the detriment of Wikipedia. We should never be "trying" to remove a user. We should either be working to help a user or removing them when it becomes apparent that there is no way to get them to contribute positively. There is no 'trying to remove' stage. When you badger a user who you know is prone to reacting badly to criticism you are not making the situation better. You are working to remove them... by goading them into disruptive behaviour. The fact that it works and you can then get rid of the user does not change the fact that what you have 'accomplished' is the transformation of a long-time positive contributor with a civility problem into someone with a reason to hate Wikipedia. To me, that just doesn't seem like a good plan. As to your comments about the e-mail... apparently my sense of humor... and the smiley... did not translate well. Sorry, I'd have thought that, "BTW... 'prat'... personal attack. Bad Lar. Naughty. Mean. :]", was fairly obviously a joke poking fun at my own 'hyper-sensitivity' on this issue. --CBD 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "calling a spade a spade", there are many times where it is quite incivil, but there are also times where it can be of some benefit (as demonstrated by JoshuaZs message). At that exact same time, it is also worth noting that Discretion is the better part of valour.

On that note, I would have to say that this discussion appears to be getting very long and a little on the repetitive side, with the same points being made over and over again. Surely drawing a line under this discussion would reflect far better on the wikipedia community and the noticeboard itself? ...Just a thought :) --Crimsone 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I'm simply amazed at the sheer number of people here that are going to great lengths to give reasons why and when it's ok to be incivil. Last I checked, WP:CIVIL didn't come with exceptions. --Kbdank71 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Such disruption as trolling or vandalism (for example) is incivil in itself. Giving such incivility a name that specifies its type is not incivil. Perhaps it is incivil to say that "MemberX is a troll", but it is not civil to make a factual statement such as "I consider MemberX to be trolling because...", or "MemberX has a reputation/history of trolling". The problem of incivility here only occurs when such statements are ill thought out or cannot be proved. --Crimsone 15:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is truth in that. Even someone as "warped and oversensitive" as myself doesn't object to calling a user with nothing but clear vandalism edits a "vandal"... but calling a user with positive contributions (even a handful, let alone thousands) a "troll" or "bad editor" is to me a clearly different matter. I suppose it's an 'assume good faith' issue. If there is any reason to give the person the benefit of the doubt you should... and name calling is wholely inappropriate. If they've never done a single good thing... well heck just block them and don't bother putting a name on what they are. :] --CBD 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD, I'm not sure I ever used the phrase "trying to remove a user" in this context. At least not on this page that I could find. Or if I did, I didn't mean it as being out to get a user or bait them into a blockable offense. I did say "trying to fix things", though. And thats where your well meaning but ultimately misguided insertions are causing breakage of the fixing process. Please stop undercutting other admins. It's really that simple. Because, when you carry it too far, you're acting in a disruptive manner. Well intentioned or not. Contradicting an admin who is giving a civility warning to a user, good contributor or not, who has a history of ACTING like a petulant child, because the admin wants that user to settle down and fly straight... just is not good. Please stop undercutting other admins. Please. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar can you please tell Chairboy that its ok for me to state people are acting like petulant children when I feel they are in fact doing so and are permitted on this page to talk frankly about users express their behavior. Thank you. How can it be disruptive if the concensus here is its permitted on this talk page? [31] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Aparently others here are starting to act like petulant children also. You seem to be getting annoyed with your constant reiteration of the same thing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Zer0faults to not use WP:POINT (as I feel he did in the edit above), and during the conversation, he gleefully told me that he had saved a diff of one of my edits, so I expect we'll see that rolled out here pretty shortly as another fine example of an admin who has gone terribly rouge. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you just accuse me of something? Perhaps you should try to AGF. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I just asked you not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, which you acknowledged was your intent. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lar, if the other admins aren't violating Wikipedia's bedrock behavioural policies and past ArbCom rulings I won't stop them. --CBD 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is useless[edit]

We're up to 66K of nothing whatsoever. Someone please move this useless waste of bits somewhere else, or I'm moving it to the talk page of WP:LAME. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I dont think any of the rude admins will ever be less rude. They feel its their right and that is how it will stay. A noble effort CB made, but he should have anticipated that if the general rude admin is in fact rude, they are probably hard headed as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Ti mi has the same MO as publicgirluk and Courtney Akins. Some of her images have been moved to Commons, where there's been some concern over the legitimacy of them. I suggest a checkuser and probably a block like we did to the others. --Rory096 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: She, or whomever, uploaded the masturbation Image to Wikipedia Commons but it was deleted as too much of a risk. I suggest we do that here to until the Image has proven it's copyright status. The Images on Wikipedia are Image:Messeins.jpg and Image:Masturbation_techniques.jpg — The Future 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted them for now. If a decision is made that would include them feel free to reverse my action. JoshuaZ 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I support your actions. Admin actions are not set on stone or irreversably, erring on the side of caution is good. -- Drini 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, as one of the more "err on the side of caution" voices (not "conservative" voices) at Wikipedia: Images of identifiable persons (or whatever the exact name is), I fully support deleting until the images are proven licit. The stakes are too high, and the "people" doing the uploading too unknown. Geogre 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed every edit of the three users in question, I find nothing whatsoever in common between Publicgirluk and Courtney Akins in MO, or between Ti mi and Courtney Akins. There are significant differences apparent also between Publicgirluk and Ti mi, not least because the latter, unlike the former, has uploaded a photo which has been processed to remove the facial details, thus preventing personal identfication; there are other differences which I am not making public to avoid impersonation of either user. Tyrenius 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I roughly concur with Tyrenius. However these pictures are problematic enough (indeed more problematic than the PGUK pics) and we need to discuss whether these pics are wanted. JoshuaZ 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're right, the specifics are different, for example the lesser quality of these pictures, the concept of posting sexually explicit pictures at this particular time, when we just happen to have two others doing it is very suspicious. It could be the same person changing his methods slightly so people wouldn't think it's him, or it could be a copycat. --Rory096 04:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to show that it is a "he" (except for the male pic). I think we can expect an increased number of such uploads, not for trolling reasons, but simply, as with Publicgirluk, that people think an uncensored encyclopedia covering sexual topics should have such images available, and are sufficiently comfortable with their own sexuality to upload them. Tyrenius 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is appropriate to delete the images without some minimal effort to determine the validity of the purported source. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Private_photos_of_identifiable_models is a proposed policy, and has no binding force at this point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The two recent pics do not feature identifiable models, so presumably the issue is just one of content, and there is already the precedent that such content is acceptable. Tyrenius 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you think they are not sufficiently identifiable to be an issue feel free to undelete them (I think both pictures show a number of possibly identifiable features but if you think they definitely aren't I'll go along). JoshuaZ 05:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The woman's features have been blurred (presumably not the action of a vengeful ex) and the other one - well I must admit that gave me a chuckle as to what the identifiable features might be for you! I'd rather wait to see if there are any more comments before undeleting. Tyrenius 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you undelete an image. I've always been under the impression that images were "gone forever" when deleted... has this changed? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the case, but now they can be restored, like deleted article pages. Tyrenius 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently evading his block through an anonymous IP: 69.227.167.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See contribution history and specifically [32] where he admits that it's easier editing with the block now in place. -- Gogo Dodo 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, evading blocks in such a way is covered by WP:BAN. From the diff provided, this is clearly a case of evading a plock resulting from an ArbCom ruling, as the user actually states as much. Crimsone 04:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw it and dealt with it appropriately. Under WP:BAN#Evasion and enforcement, all edits by a banned user should be reverted/speedy deleted, and the "ban timer" should be reset. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When he says "it's easier editing with the block now in place", he is probably referring to the fact that the ISP that he is using uses a dynamic IP address. If he abuses any further, we may need to contact his ISP directly to report the abuse. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! Last time I saw that page (not long ago coincidentally) it had one heck of a backlog. In the meantime, I'm sure that this user is going to be (metaphorically at least) laughing quite heartily over the situation. Oh well.Crimsone 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He be doing it again, 69.237.25.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here, too. Ryūlóng 07:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have permabanned Plautus Satire and protected his talk page. Plautus has twice sat out year bans, come back, and clearly flagged that he intends to be his usual self. Truth be told, there were grounds for a community ban last time, but the arbcom inexplicably laid down a year ban overwriting a clear consensus for a community ban. There's no reason to deal with this a third time. Phil Sandifer 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, has it been a year again already? Time flies. I'm gonna miss our annual visits. --Golbez 04:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that if ArbCom said a year but the community said "indefinite" (by someone imposing an indef block, properly bringing it here for review, and subsequently no admin out of our 1000 choosing to shorten it) that the community block/ban would prevail... Did that not happen in this case then? ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but community bans were much rarer a year ago. They happened, but they lacked the frequency that they have now. Phil Sandifer 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it only me seeing a problem with this kind of voting? I might be misstaken, but i thought admins are supposed to be more in-line with the rules. Is it ok for an adming to know that a subject has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, Scoop and London Independent and still vote "Delete conspiracy theory nonsense POV cruftist..simply not notable."?

This is the same admin that was involved in the Template:Alex Jones issue earlier here on ANI.--Striver 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• What administrative action are you requesting here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The "rules" do permit an administrator to express his personal opinion on an AfD , and there is no requirement (that I'm aware of) that MONGO should always agree with Striver or refrain from commenting when he does not. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, whoever closes the deletion can simply ignore votes which they find illogical or clearly biased. I wouldn't worry about it. JoshuaZ 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, understood. We can regard this issue as settled. Thanks for the time. --Striver 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver...you are the worst POV pusher on Wikipedia. I think it's time you went away. Your Rfa is clear demostration of just how much the community distains your POV pushing.--MONGO 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your counter POV pushing is just as distasteful, along with Tom Harrison, Tbeatty, and the rest of the Happy Facist George Bush Buddy Crowd. rootology (T) 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this user was rightfully blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks; offending comments: [33], [34], [35]. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not happy about a proposed arbcom situation that may result in him being indefinitely banned. His behavior this morning won't help him much.--MONGO 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I feel that you are also frequently guilty of POV pushing, and appear to me to often be unwilling to be civil and polite. I am of the opinion that many of the comments you make are rude and out of line, especially for an admin. Yes, calling someone a "POV cruftist" is a personal attack. Your point can be made without it. --Hyperbole 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In defense of MONGO here, his opinion that the subject of the AfD is conspiracy theory nonsense POV cruftist is, as one other editor put it "Bang on the money" and is the emerging consensus in the debate. Also, I see no reason to outlaw that kind of language in an AfD debate. Pascal.Tesson 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver, please do not waste the space of AN/I for trivial requests. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 10:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly experienced editor, ~4000 edits now, on a number of topics. I've run into a major issue though on one sensitive article dealing with racism against Jews: New anti-Semitism. The problem is that I can't edit the article in the least. When I do, I am reverted instantly and then a series of accusations of various sorts are made against me. The problem is I am not doing what these accusations say but the accusations are effective in making sure I can't edit the article.

Here is the before and after of the change I made yesterday. I change the bold phrase:

"In September 2006, the British parliament released a report after a 10-month inquiry by prominent MPs from all three major political parties into anti-Semitism in Britain, chaired by the former Europe Minister Denis MacShane. The report concludes that verbal abuse, harassment, and violence against Jews and their institutions in the UK has reached 'worrying levels,' and accuses left-wing activists and Muslim extremists of using criticism of Israel as a 'pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism. McShane described what he called a 'witch's brew' of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists."

"In September 2006, the British parliament released a report after a 10-month inquiry by prominent MPs from all three major political parties into anti-Semitism in Britain, chaired by the former Europe Minister Denis MacShane. The report concludes that verbal abuse, harassment, and violence against Jews and their institutions in the UK has reached "worrying levels." The report, while it emphasized the right to criticize or protest against Israeli government actions, states that criticism of Israel sometimes 'provided a pretext' for spreading anti-Semitism. McShane described what he called a "witch's brew" of anti-Semitism involving the far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists."

I made that change based on this sentence from the original source:

"Though emphasising the right of people to criticise or protest against Israeli government actions, it says 'rage' over Israeli policies has sometimes 'provided a pretext' for anti-semitism."

Because of my change above, SlimVirgin and Jayjg accused me of trying to remove the various key points [36] [37], of whitewashing and POV [38], and of distorting thing with my own opinion [39]. The only way accusation that some could have made sense was if one stopped reading through the paragraph half way. The problem is that none of these accusations by SlimVirgin or Jayjg are true, but it doesn't seem to matter. It's really quite strange, over the top and frustrating. Is my change really such a distortion of the original that I deserve such accusations and to be marginalized so effectively?

There is the related issue of whether SlimVirgin is exerting ownership (see WP:OWN) over this article via these types of over the top threats. Here are the current edit counts for this article for the top six editors :

• SlimVirgin - 642 edits
• Jayjg - 158 edits
• CJCurrie - 147 edits
• HOTR - 67 edits
• Viriditas - 66 edits
• Jmabel - 66 edits

I have 10 edits (most of which were reverted by either SV or Jayjg) of the content of the article, although more to the discussion page.

This is the same article that SlimVirgin warned me not to edit and threatened that "there would be consequences" if I did. I reported that incident to this page back in July here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#SlimVirgin_requested_me_to_not_edit_article. From my perspective, I can't help but connect this incident of over the top reaction to a minor and fairly accurate change to that past warning not to edit the article.

Suggestions on how best to deal with this is appreciated. --Ben Houston 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I have been reverted on this article by SV and Jayjg -- I must admit that it is frustrating as heck to be marginalized in such a way. --Ben Houston 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The solution would seem to be to quote the relevant paragraph in full from the MacShane report, in a quote box, and not editorialise it at all. Did you try suggesting that on Talk? Guy 15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I think that is a great way to move forward. --Ben Houston 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston was the one who added his own nuance to what was a very close paraphrase of the article. And the reason I have the most edits to the page is that I rewrote it a few weeks ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like one could take a good-faith view of that edit and see it as eliminating redundancy, as the only words removed were a repetition of "far left and 'ultra-Islamist' extremists". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what Bhouston is objecting to. SlimVirgin has spent a great deal of effort turning something that was fairly unfocussed and used variable quality sources into an encyclopedic article that makes use of literally dozens of high-quality sources. I was an earlier editor of the article, and have also tried to help out with the cleanup, though obviously to a lesser extent. Are these edit counts now to be held against us? As regards the quotation, Wikipedia articles aren't quote repositories; the report itself is 66 pages long, do you plan to quote all of it? I hope you're not planning to turn it into an unreadable mess like this article you wrote. One cannot write a readable narrative simply by endlessly quoting various individuals; judicious use of quotes is important, but there must be some connective tissue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I purposely stopped editing that article you just referenced to accommodate 6SJ7's WP:OWN concerns (see [40]). Unfortunately, stepping away from the article does leave it in a semi-finished state (especially since no one else stepped in to edit it in my absence) while also exposing myself to criticisms such as yours (that I don't finish articles.) I think I made the right choice and the situation is only temporary. For examples of readable articles that I have written or contributed to see the list on my userpage. --Ben Houston 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one needs look any further than this for examples of completely unreadable quote farms; many of the quotes aren't even relevant to the topic. I hope you're not planning on sticking that monstrosity into the New anti-Semitism article, which is actually readable and nuanced. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are attacking an article/section outline within my user space (which I just started researching an hour ago hence the disorganized mess!) for not being a completed and polished article. You are being unfair. --Ben Houston 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he's objecting to being attacked for having an agenda when he made a stylistic change to an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the only edit he's made; rather, he has a long history of editing from a particular POV. One should not look at these things in isolation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this edit and it is indeed the edit that was "discussed" at length on the talk page, with what appears to be Slim and yourself haranguing him for it. Histories are relevant, but none of the involved editors have spotless records with regards to POV pushing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in the above comment, there is little wrong with this particlar edit. It is indeed a positive contribution and takes an element of potentionally questionable POV on the source, replacing it with something that is far more closely connected to the source itself, thus making it far more neutral. Nobody will deny the good work that anybody has done to an article, but neither should those who have done such good work prevent others from making a valid, worthy, good faith contribution. Crimsone 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Histories are relevant, but none of the involved editors have spotless records with regards to POV pushing." You have a gift for understatement. --172.190.97.52 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to look at diffs, be sure to check all Bhouston's contributions so that the pattern becomes obvious, and please don't discuss us in terms of POV on that article. Jay and I, and others, have worked hard to try to represent the authoritative sources fairly. That's my final comment. This is a content issue and this is not the place for it. It's simply an attempt to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweeping, vague general accusations of POV pushing reflect more on the accuser than the accused. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently I have made a change in the article Commitment ordering. After logging in I was returned to the article without clicking the return. At the article I was NOT logged in. I refreshed, logged in again, but the same.

Then I noticed that when I edit, I'm logged in again. I edited, saved, and was returned to the article. Again I was NOT logged in. I could not see the latest change in the article. However it appeared in History, and in Diff.

I sent a message

---

Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:52 PM To: unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org

Subject: Am I blocked?

My user name is Comps.

I recall that a couple of months ago I got a message about somebody using my IP (Some user name with "Horse" was mentioned, I think), and I had trouble to log in. But after several attemps it was OK. Today I wrote an update, and after returning to the article (Commitment Ordering) I was not logged in, I did not see the change, but it appeared in History and Last.

This is not the normal behaviour of Wikipedia. Is something wrong, or it means that I'm blocked? Why? I'm not aware of any violations.

Pls advise.

Thanks

---

Death Phoenix kindly answered to my mail, and advised me as things developed.

Later I noticed the following:

1. This happened only with the Commitment ordering article, NOT with other articles, so it was clear I was NOT blocked.

2. Though the discussion tab was red, I entered, considering to put some comment, and then I saw a note, saying that Wikipedia is not for self advertising, or advertising a friend, and that the article would be removed as spam.

3. I answered, and immediately after this the note disappeared. I also could access the article normally, logged in, and see the last changes.

Somebody was playing with me. This should be prevented. It is extremely important that the fantastic concept and org of Wikipedia keep clean, and keep clean from abuses as much as possible.

I hope the hacker can be traced and disciplined. Death Phoenix followed the event, but unfortunately could not see by himself what I have seen. He just read my descriptions of what happened, step by step. Unfortunately I did not copy the abusive note, and later I was not able to retrieve it from my browser history. I'm still trying.

Thnx, Comps

Comps

Response[edit]

Hi, I can confirm that I received these emails from Comps regarding the Commitment ordering article. He first thought that he was blocked because he couldn't see his changes. However, he wasn't blocked and the "Horse" autoblock he describes was probably from a long time ago. Looking at article history, I could see that his changes were in the article and that they weren't reverted. He said that he noticed a note in the article talk page, as described above, that someone had a spam warning. However, I could not see any such warning in the article talk page, and looking at the histories of both the article and its talk page yields no deleted edits. I wonder if it's an oversight deletion, but I don't think so since oversight deletions are only for the deletion of personal information and similar illegal edits. Any idea what's going on? I couldn't see what Comps was talking about, and he says these things he saw disappeared. He (and I) are both mystified by this. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds very much like a caching issue. It's probably either the Wikipedia Squid, the browser's own cache, or if his ISP uses one, an ISP proxy cache. Ctrl-F5 (IE) or shift-ctrl-R (Firefox) should bypass the cache and force a refresh from the server, although if a proxy cache is in play, that still won't do anything. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my suggestions as well, at least with regards to his changes in the article. It doesn't quite explain the spam warning in the article talk page, however. I also checked his user talk page for that spam warning and didn't see it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the note was this:

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

Copyright infringements, attacks, and nonsense will be deleted without warning.

which is the normal "click on a red link and start a page" warning. And it does indeed disappear once the page has been started. It's not particularly abusive, just intimidating - to all the wrong people, probably! JackyR | Talk 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Many thanks. Just goes to show you how much I pay attention to those disclaimers. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

That message indeed. Seems to be a combination of two distinct "strange" issues that led me to a far-reaching conclusion... Being enoyed and paranoiac by the first, I overreacted on the second. Looks to me now quite silly-amusing and resolved. Thanks to all, especially to deathphoenix.

Comment: A strange place, discussion, to post such a notice, even for red. A new article, I would understand. However, if a rule for initiating any red case, I can also understand... So, I must have encountered it several times in the past. Pity I have not remembered...

Comps 15:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Eight days ago, Sean Black blocked me for a week, saying "Date formatting idiocy; has been persistently warned." In subsequent discussions it emerged that views among admins differed as to how a paragraph in the MoS should be interpreted. I have begun seeking input on the relevant talk page as to how best to reword it so as to avoid any future problems.

My first action on block expiry was to ask Sean for clarification, as to which edits he found the most idiotic. He ceased editing for the day at that point, but as he has since resumed and no answer is forthcoming, I assume that he has no answer for me, and I invite the wider community of admins to explain why a stiff initial block was imposed, along with what a reasonable person would regard as an incivil comment.

Given that we are a volunteer workforce, perhaps it is too much to ask for consistency and professional behaviour amongst admins. --Jumbo 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'd urge you to assume good faith on Sean's part. For some reason, you inserted your request for an explanation into another editor's comment in the middle of his talk page. He may not have even realized that you asked him a question.

Second, several editors informed you on your talk page why a campaign to reformat dates (from U.S. to European style, or vice versa) in articles was both misguided and disruptive. I have blocked you for an additional seven days, because you've gone right back to doing it again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I encourage any admin to lift the block if SuperJumbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) agrees not to change any more dates for the time being. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be only one admin who agrees with your actions, and rather exaggeratedly. You have been told by at least three admins, including Raul, that mass date changing is unacceptable. You have been told by two ArbCom members—that is, the people who wrote these decisions you cite so lawyerly, and who are the authority in applying them—to stop making these changes. You were then blocked and had your unblock requests reviewed by three totally different admins not previously involved in the matter. Your interpretation of the ArbCom decisions flatly contradicts the plain words in them. —Centrx→talk • 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Three arbcom members actually - myself, Jayjg, and Fred Bauder. Raul654 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the actual blocking of this editor was the correct thing to do, I'd like to point out that this is not the only brief-discussion block Sean Black has implemented of late. Apparently, he blocked Grace Note with hardly so much as a how-do-you-do, as the user in question was in the midst of some heavy metaphysical discussion on the God talk page and some other discussion on the Reliable sources talk page. I was and remain baffled by the accusations of trolling, and the unblocking admin seemed similarly baffled. I wonder whether perhaps Sean Black's blocking behavior should be looked at more closely to help him come to a fuller understanding of blocking policy. Captainktainer * Talk 02:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with Grace Note's history before you make such rash statements. pschemp | talk 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather familiar with past issues, which have little bearing on an out-of-the-blue indefinite block without much in the way of justification or a public notice of a community ban. Captainktainer * Talk 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Genius Chimpanzee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a very similar editing style and is editing the same articles as Devout Christian, a blocked user. Does this need a CheckUser? --GunnarRene 23:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats quite the username... alphaChimp^(talk) 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier today I speedy-closed an AfD for Bindi Irwin and speedy redirected it to Steve Irwin based on precedent for children of notable celebrities. Now the creator of that article, User:Croclover, has created the same article as BindiIrwin and Bindi Irwin Crocodile Hunter, and probqably other names too. So I've blocked him for 24 hours. But since I was the one who closed the AfD on his article and undid his work, I'm placing my block and the decision to speedy redirect here for review. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the personal attacks, threats, stubbornness, and so forth, I think the block is completely warranted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the block and speedy redirect. The AfD's been reopened though, so you may want to go look at that... --james^(talk) 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the re-opening of the AfD. I called for a delete and redirect. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Lorrainier has been heavily involved in the pro-deletion MfD attacks on Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit and on their logos. Like User:Dr Chatterjee/BB/WoW, his edit history from a new account (20 August) shows too great a knowledge of long-term abuse and policy. I don't have sufficient knowledge to investigate and mount a case for RFCU, so per the advice on WP:RFCU I'm listing it here. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I recent filed an RFI on this user; I suggest further discussion on the matter should be forwarded to that page just in the interest of keeping everything in one place (however I'm open to the idea of that forum being AN/I or SSP if anyone thinks either is more appropriate). ~ PseudoSudo 01:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I found something I believe is in violation of either WP:sock, WP:SPA, or WP:spam. The username is Wikiposter06. Have a look at the contributions. Ruff ^{Bark away!} 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a link spammer. Probably not the place to post about it here though maybe somewhere under Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. -Shogun 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a report already at the Biographies noticeboard, but felt I should link to it from here as well since there are problems with the user's actions beyond just the one article.

Please see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Jack Vance

-- Renesis13 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User from 213.240.3.* and 213.240.0.* subnets has been edit waring in Mila Jovovich and bypassing 3RR by changing his dynamic IP address after 3 reverts. Most likely this person has an account, but is not logging and refreshing IPs when they want to avoid 3RR blocks.

Please see history of Mila Jovovich article for overview of the pattern.

Recent history:

• 213.240.3.17 3 Reverts: [41] [42] [43]

(switch ip)

• 213.240.3.43 [44] [45] [46]

(switch ip)

• 213.240.3.215 [47] [48]

My 3RR Warnings to recent IPs: [49] [50] [51] [52]

Response from 213.240: [53] - Thank you for that. I have been using and editing Wikipedia since its very begginings, and consider myself very well versed in its rules...I am not in danger of being blocked...

Some other known IPs for this user: (User:213.240.3.19, User:213.240.0.37, User:213.240.0.41, User:213.240.0.93, User:213.240.3.58)

I'm not sure where the appropriate place is to report this, so please let me know what the next step should be if I should have not posted this here. Thanks // Lowg ^.talk. 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would report it at WP:3RR. I rather think this user either doesn't know the rules as well as he/she thinks and is in real danger of being banned. WP:3RR has rather clear information on how it is not acceptable to do such things...

"Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to test the limits of the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording."--Crimsone 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on what you are suggesting? Should I report this as 3RR violation or take it arbitration committee since this is a more complex case. Lowg 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Courtney Akins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a week for this edit, the last straw in a campaign of trolling. Please review. See also my block message to her.[54]. Bishonen | talk 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

This is getting ridiculous. Can we please indef block him(yes, I'm pretty sure about the gender of this troll) now? JoshuaZ 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef? A sweet girl like that? Bishonen | talk 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Hun! El_C 03:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes we can. Done. Nandesuka 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be more formal: I endorse JoshuaZ's request for an indef block, feel free to extend my block--oh, you already did. Good. Oh, El C, there you are, have you decided about the wedding date yet? Bishonen | talk 03:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

Anytime, anyplace in Palermo! El_C 04:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me - this user is an amusing troll but still a troll. I do think we should get Lar's opinion, but I doubt that he'll have anything very mitigating to say. Metamagician3000 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with JoshuaZ and have thought so all along, unless anyone wants to keep a pet troll for amusement. Tyrenius 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have a pet troll. This one has clearly been spoiled by humans though. Happens everytime they move out of their natural habitat of living under rickety bridges. We really need to stop building highways. JoshuaZ 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. This is totally different behavior than the public girl, by the way, in case anyone had any lingering doubts. --Cyde Weys 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was really warming up to her until her boyfriend and his pet rooster came along. As I've said before, she's been trolling us hard the whole time, and now, having received enough clear warnings and chances, the indef seems fine. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was away from WP for a few hours so missed all this going down. I had asked to be left to try to manage this and committed I'd hand out blocks if needed, and am disappointed that others felt this matter so urgent it couldn't wait... In reviewing, I agree that there is significant trolling here. However I don't see it as so pernicious that it couldn't wait a few hours, really. Nevertheless what is done is done and I support an indef and consider the mentorship over, never really got through to this user despite multiple tries. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have told you you were wasting your time. Possibly I did. El_C 04:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You did. And so did others. I nevertheless think it was worth a try. It was not certain that the user was irredeemable, and I thought it was worth the effort. Win some, lose some. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was certain! El_C 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

El C was right, I was wrong, dead wrong. As the other "mentor," I support this block. She ignored me heavily, and that last edit she did was pretty much the nail in the coffin. I wish I would have been the blocking admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to commend Lar and Zscout370 for taking this an extra stage and putting into practice WP:AGF. It's better to do that than to indef block someone when there is still doubt with other users as to their real intent, thus leaving an unhealthy sense of possible injustice. Tyrenius 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Lar—no, of course it wasn't that urgent. (My name isn't "others", don't be such a stuffed shirt.) I merely didn't remember you'd asked to be the one to block, or I would have left it. Although it would admittedly have been interesting to just report it here and see how many seconds she remained unblocked after I hit "Save". Not a significant number, I guess, judging by Zscout's remark and the way people tripped over their own feet after I reported I'd blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC).

A stuffed shirt? Moi? I guess maybe I am... I just said "others" because it was late and I was too lazy to rattle off all the people that sprained their fingers on the block button. But this is no big deal, really, I'm not mad or anything or about to go ranting off on someone's talk page calling them stupid or incompetent or anything, I just would have liked to have been able to finish the mentorship out. I may go give a ceremonial indef myself just to get closure, dunno. You're right, once reported HERE, a block would be swift, but BunchOfGrapes had reported her on my talk page and I definitely would have acted. STILL. it matters not. This user is done editing here. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed several IP address spamming various TV channels' talk pages with the same URL to a .ASX video file. There are various talk pages that have been hit, which can be seen from at least these three IP address: 72.249.16.50, 69.36.166.207, and 67.15.217.15. All of the edits so far have used an edit summary of "rv vandalism". The IP address of the linked website resolves to Case Western Reserve University. I wget'ed the contents of the .asx file, which led me to a related .nsc file, but I don't know enough about this format to do any more. Any possibility that this is a link to something that will exploit a buffer-overflow, or something similar? It seems oddly organized and persistent to be just promoting Joe Shmoe's new videoblog.. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet of an extremely persistent, and odd, vandal known as User:Enlighter1. I've been reverting him one night after another, and he often vandalizes my talk page as well. Since he has been using backslashing proxies, I've been blocking them indefinitely; I'd welcome any others to keep an eye on this strange vandal. He also replaces the website link of news agencies (e.g. Reuters) with a Yahoo link, but currently some of those articles are semi-protected. Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't User:SPOON ME IN THE ASS WIKIPEDIA be blocked? --nkayesmith 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He is [55]. It's just not on the usertalk. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Blocking on meta:Right to vanish (not an incident) --  Netsnipe  ►  06:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The user pasted about 750kb of image links into Template:Wiktionary (history: [56]) and, after having reverted that vandalizm pasted the same stuff onto my talkpage. See: special:Contributions/Broodwitch --katpatuka 09:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's blocked. You are better off posting to WP:AIAV for such sitations in the future. Thanks.--MONGO 09:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Several IPs and brand new users, including SeanDavis46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Igbigbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 67.149.195.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.77.176.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 66.213.29.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), keep removing comments at Talk:Ezebuiro Obinna - especially those comments questioning the copyright of the page. These users have made otherwise positive contributions. I suspect they are all the same person, trying to cover for the fact that Ezebuiro Obinna is a copyvio. All these addresses have been warned. Could someone (other than just me) patrol Talk:Ezebuiro Obinna and revert the removal of critical comments? Thanks so much. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I had brought this up here the other day; it looks like it was archived almost as soon as I reported it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to a particular new report I answered on WP:PAIN, where (I believe in good faith) a user whom I suspect may not be sysopped (though I may be wrong) has added a temporary block template to a talk page. It's done no harm as the entire contrib history of the user warned consists of personal attacks, but if the person adding the block template was not a sysop, it seems perhaps a rather inappropriate action. That of course, and the page needs attention anyway. :) --Crimsone 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out this users history. Someone is at it again.

• User_talk:155.247.166.29
• User talk:155.247.166.28

-- evrik 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Try WP:AIV, also 155.247.166.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is more useful for people looking into an IP vandal's history--172.162.88.163 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

From time to time, people tend to export flame wars to AN/i looking for an admin to take sides, and these sort of posts tend to degenerate fast. What do you think of this idea: Every time someone exports a flame war to AN/i, all involved parties that continue the flame war here on AN/i get a 15 minute "cool off" block to calm them down, along with a notice telling them to go somewhere else? The key being to block all parties, to avoid taking sides, similar to 3RR, only shorter, and as an AN/i cool off? Thoughts...?--172.162.88.163 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocks do not cool people off. Telling them to go somewhere else is the correct response. —Nate Scheffey 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to reply to this notable discussion [57] because of a traffic accident that led to a broken foot, so I'll try to do it now.

• First, I fully respect not only the literal meaning, but also the spirit of the rules, the spirit of discussion and arguments. Unfortunately the rules in Wikipedia not always enforced enough and some users feel they can freely broke the rules if their opponent has long blocking history.
• Next as you can see, most of blocks of me were done by involved admins, which supported their own versions. I always invite other party to discuss the changes. I can even present cases were I asked other user to explain his opinion either in the revert summary, article's talk page and his own talk page - and still no answer did I got.
• My contributions you can see from the Moscow, Colonization of Mercury articles as well as many others. My fight the vandalism you can see here: [58]. Unfortunately I was not awarded an anti-vandal barnstar by anybody for this work.
• As you can see from the Talk:Pluto, I did not object calling Pluto a dwarf planet since it's official designation. So any occusations me in lamerism originated from misinformation.
• Thanks to Alex Bakharev.--Nixer 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

About twenty different administrators were involved in your blocks (I think I may have double-counted once or twice, but around that number), and the fact that you have been a block sheet longer than a perpetually misbehaving bot (even discounting duplicates and unblock/reblocks to lengthen block timers) is telling (I'm actually rather shocked/impressed that you'd managed to get away with it for so long). The fact that, at least for now, you need an "abusive sockpuppets" tag to warn other contributors is also telling. For that matter, getting a barnstar is something you don't expect or whine about not getting - it's something you occasionally get as a reward, and your history of aggressive editing places you in a position of mistrust with respect to the community. You've gotten a reprieve by the graciousness of the community, which is willing to place its trust in Alex Bakharev's mentorship. I would suggest making use of it; a couple months or so of high-quality editing should get you what you want. In the meantime, an aggressive defense of yourself isn't likely to get you anywhere; I would recommend dropping it, hitting Special:Randompage, and finding an article to edit. Captainktainer * Talk 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:82.92.94.108 and User:82.168.59.236, obviously the same person, known for vandalizing football pages, made some changes that aren't based on truth on FK Partizan article, and when asked to discuss it on the talk page, the user just kept reverting. I'm asking both IPs to be blocked for a while, although, since there is such a long history of vandalism on both accounts, perhaps the best thing would be a permanent block.--Vitriden 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest WP:AN/3RR or WP:AIV. We don't indef block IPs, as a rule, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as 216.194.1.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and edit warring on Daniel O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. Can an admin take the necessary action please? Thanks! Demiurge 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Academic Challenger. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. WP:E!
2. WP:EEE
3. WP:MOPA
4. WP:MOTA

and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joy Of Learning, Inquiry, Exploration" which I have speedied as Nonsense, disruption. User has started at least five projects in the last week Please review this action. and post dissenting views and rationale here - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion all of these projects are inappropriate WP:POV-pushing by Jon. He has a clear agenda - see his extensive postings at Wikipedia talk:No original research for which he has been blocked for trolling in the past. I'd suggest taking them all the MfD. Gwernol 20:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was supposed to be going. Funny how often people keep editing even after spending weeks trolling (in this case the mailing list) with absurd self-justifying homilies about how they are leaving a project which is surely doomed because it really is everybody else who is wrong. I feel a touch of WP:ROUGE coming on. Guy 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about his long drawn out essay on why he was leaving WP not being fulfilled myself, but a quick check of the Internet Field Guide to Troll Behavior soon clarified things for me. Needless to say, I support your actions wholeheartedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I believe Jon is edging from the harmless troll zone into the disruptive pain in the arse zone these days; perhaps the time is approaching for the community to forcibly take him at his word, as it were. Well, maybe that's a bit harsh, but we could perhaps community-ban him from project space for a while. Guy 22:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

IMNSHO whatever contributions he may have made are far outweighed by his continual disruption and POV pushing. His editing style everywhere I have seen it is to obfuscate to the point of nonsense; I will support any ban decided by the community up to and including total ban from the project. Alas, I fear that will take the long drawn out route to accomplish, and I have not the time to be of much help if that is the case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a URL for the Internet Field Guide to Troll Behavior? I need to refresh my memory. (And he's Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. )— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies: It is here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I found it, "The Sophist Troll" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this: he's moving to the point where the sheer volume of his POV-pushing and blather threatens to overwhelm several important policy debates including those at WP:NOR and WP:VAIN. I would absolutely support further action against him. Gwernol 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jon Awbrey may have exhausted the community's patience. I'm not aware of any useful edits he makes, and efforts to discuss the frequency of his posts to policy talk pages (226 posts to NOR talk in just a few weeks) are rebuffed. It's difficult to know what the point of most of his posts are, and he reverts when people try to refactor or move issues to subpages. He engaged in the same behavior on wikiEN-l. It has reached the point with NOR talk that it's impossible to have a sensible discussion because of him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guy as well; since he's said he's leaving we should just help him fulfill his desire in this regard. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon's had plenty of warnings and opportunities to not disrupt the project and contribute quietly. And he's recently just off a fairly long block for similar activities. There's only so much the community should have to put with, so something more substantial seems to be necessary. FeloniousMonk 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. JoshuaZ 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block implemented. Gwernol 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Jon Awbrey's edits in article space are very beneficial to wikipedia and should be allowed to continue so long they continue to be beneficial. His edits outside article space have indeed exhausted the community's patience. One concern here is that article edits by him as an anon or a new name might be reverted to no good end. I'm sure you guys can work out the details. Thanks. WAS 4.250 05:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree here: although he is disputatious and often includes WP:OR, he also does make sound and valid contributions. I don't have a problme with blocking him while we think about what to do, but I do think that we should do one of the following:

• As a community, ban him from Project space (other than to enter a comment of reasonable length in any debate related to an article on which he is active or has expert knowledge)
• Take the case to ArbCom and ask them to come up with a solution

I am reluctant to trouble ArbCom if there is an unambiguous and obvious consensus to do what we believe ArbCom would do anyway. We could start an RFC, but the idea of an RFC with Jon fills me with horror - we'd need to add more storage to the servers to acommodate all the argumentation and justificaitons why (as always) he is the only one marching in step.

So my reluctance aside, ArbCom may be the best course. Do nothing is not really an option. Guy 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, can you give some examples of Jon's good editing in article space? My own preference is the indefinite block, but if we're to limit him only from the project space, it would have to be absolute with no exceptions. If you give him an inch, he'll take a mile and we'll be back where we started. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that as well, my experience with him has been on Truth and Truth theory where his editing has been anything but "sound and valid contributions." I understand he contributes to mathmatical articles, are his contributions there improvements? I'm not qualified to judge. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not checked every edit by JA. However, every edit I have sen (to an article) was trivial, pedantic, or just poorly-worded. I think perhaps he just likesbeing ableto read himselfon the internet. I have seen noevidence of his making positivecontributionsand on tlak pages he has a clear patern of disruption and obfuscation. He makes endless series of comments that make no sense or are so abstracxt that they must be referring to something else though who knows what. The effect of his adding allthis mishmash is so that he can then say "obviously discussion is ongoing so there is no consensus yet; people have to respond to each of my comments before we can say this discussion is over." Killer Chihuahu and others have already pointed out the destructive effects of this tactic. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidently my impression of good contributions is the result of insufficient expertise in the subject areas. I now concur with the community ban, especially given the response to said ban. Guy 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In saying "User:Jon Awbrey's edits in article space are very beneficial to wikipedia and should be allowed to continue so long they continue to be beneficial." I was thinking specifically of logic and Charles Peirce related articles (and not to talk pages or other articles) even tho I was also motivated to speak by his article edits in the 24 hours prior to being indef banned (which while beneficial can also be characterized mostly as "trivial, pedantic" as Slrubenstein points out; but in any case should not be reverted. Can anyone claim wikipedia is better off reverting his article edits made in that 24 hour period?). According to his talk page his major edits are at "608 Truth 418 Charles Sanders Peirce 294 Philosophy of mathematics 201 Relation (mathematics) 174 Relation composition 160 Scientific method 123 Pragmatic theory of truth 122 Truth theory 118 Sign relation 104 Logical graph 84 Theory of relations 83 Relation reduction" I can see where he could get himself into trouble on Truth so lets look at his last edits at that article (again, article, not talk):

1. adds {{details|Truth theory}}[59]
2. makes the ref section small as it is supposed to be[60]
3. and reverts vandalizm[61]

His behavior in article space is almost always positive so far as I can see. His behavior in nonarticle space is too disruptive and nonproductive to be tolerated anymore. His intelligence is an asset so long as we can trust him to make positive contributions and in article space he appears to care about his reputation. In talk venues he prefers unproductive behavior (and for those who can't make heads or tails of it; it boils down to "I'm smarter than you; nah nah na nah nah"; which really pushed some people's buttons) when he can't immediately get his way. A total ban throws out the baby with the bathwater. WAS 4.250 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't normally say such things, but since JA is being defended as a valid article contributor, I must respectfully disagree. JA drove me away from the Solipsism article I was once interested in due to his heavy-handed demeanor. JA aggressively reverted all changes he did not find to his liking and was a poor communicator on the talk page- longish, detailed requests for information would be answered with an unclear tangent.

Furthermore, his writing was, frankly, crap. JA did have useful thoughts, but he absolutely refused to write well, a rather critical requirement for a WP editor who claims "English at a professional level" in his userbox. JA chose to write in neither an accessible general audience style that Wikipedia generally seeks, nor in the precise if occasionally non-obvious statements of a careful philosopher or scientist. Instead, at least to my humble opinion, JA wrote in the pretentious blather of a college student who covers for the fact he didn't actually read the works with a haze of unclear statements. Now, this is just how some people write (and they are bad writers, which is unfortunate when they have insight to communicate), but it's also how good writers can cover for a lack of knowledge. Which was it? Beats me. He seemed smart enough, but I'm still not sure on some of his stances.

Here's a sample of the cutting prose JA has introduced to Wikipedia:

Solipsism is sometimes said to be unfalsifiable, but this confuses a question of logic, namely, the logical contingency of the solipsistic thesis by virtue of its logical form, with a question of rhetoric, namely, the practical difficulties of persuading a particular person, with a particular psychological constitution, of the contingency thereof. But the normative science of logic is quite distinct from the descriptive science of psychology, and has nothing to do with the peculiarites of an individual person's thought process.

Aside from this logic being false (at least IMHO- it sets up a bizarre straw man involving pscyhology and persuasion, which was not in the original passage even a little bit), the reasoning given for why this makes any sense is... opaque, at best. Plus, it's presented as fact. This was put right near the top of the article, too.

In fairness, for those who bother to check the Solipsism talk page history, I am not completely blameless either- I restarted the debate two months later after JA had long since stopped responding to my requests for clarification on the talk page with an actual edit to the main page (I'd stopped editing before to try and avoid an edit war), but I hadn't noticed that someone had already come in and mostly cleaned up the writing. Still, my biggest complaint with JA is stylistic; I can deal with opposing viewpoints in an article, and even opposing viewpoints presented as fact, but not obfuscated writing. It took another editor, Mglg, to make clear JA's intentions (I think).

I've seen the occasional JA edit to other articles as well, albeit with less first-hand experience, and I have not been impressed. SnowFire 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He can be obscure. He delights in mindnumbing logical precision. But in reviewing his last edit to the article and most of ita talk page, I don't find that your abouve quote does him justice. the below quote from him on the talk page is perhaps more typical. WAS 4.250 07:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, we agree that psychological arguments are irrelevant. That is just my point. All of the arguments that I've seen for the claim "Solipsism is unfalsifiable" are based on psychological arguments and betray a confusion of — whatever you want to call them — pragmatic, psychological, or rhetorical arguments with logical arguments. But when someone introduces a psychological argument, you have to meet it on those grounds and try to explain how it differs from a logical argument.

Second off, the old statement said "Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it is not testable by the scientific method". There was nothing about "unknowable", whatever that means, so let's stick to one claim at a time. Terms like "logically coherent" and "falsfiable" do have definitions in logic. Unknowable? — Who knows?

Third off, unfalsifiable is not the same as unprovable or undecidable. Those terms also have definitions in logic and they are not the same concept as unfalsifiable. The typical indefeasible is really just a tautology whose syntactic form makes it difficult to recognize it as a tautology. Many strings of characters are simply not meaningful enough to qualify as a proposition that can be judged true or false. But the name for that is "meaningless", not "unfalsifiable". Jon Awbrey 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what does that show? The claim that solipsism is unfalsifiable is a game. Jon is taking it seriously, and then trying to argue against it, and does so in way that shows he hasn't grasped what it means or understood the meanings of the terms he's using. This is what he did all the time on talk pages, at great length and to Wikipedia's detriment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. I know SlimVirgin is a model Wikipedian, is an asset to Wikipedia, is better able to spot trolls than I can. I also know Jon Awbrey is very bright, focused on logic to the detriment of his ability to interact productively, and worth keeping as an editor of articles if that is possible. And that is not possible given his recent behavior on non-article pages. Enough background. On to solipsism. A debate was had in an amatuer forum (wikipedia) on a complicated philosophical subject that the professsionals disagree about. The subject (solipsism) was not given an agreed on definition. The terms used in the debate (eg falsifiable) were not given agreed on definitions. One party (Jon) assumes the definitions of the terms are the ones used in the logic circles he frequents while his debating partners assume otherwise. Semantic misunderstandings get in the way of adequate communication. I see nothing there that has anything to do with Jon's childish response to being told by people that he was a troll and to just go away because he was trying to revert longstanding text that Jon was able to show was not longstanding at all. Jon's behavior has warrented some kind of severe response. I hope in the end that response does not include his inability to edit article space. WAS 4.250 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If JA was an extremely opinionated sort who occasionally edits in cloudy writing, I wouldn't be here. That would qualify as quite a lot of Wikipedians. My problem is that even on the talk page, he couldn't explain himself very well, even to "Do you think this: Yes/No" type queries.

I wouldn't even call that excerpted statement a particularly enlightening one from JA. He still doesn't make clear his stance; I could have told you before that he thought the claim "Solipsism is unfalsifiable" has to do with psychology, but he doesn't explain why that rather non-obvious statement would be true. The second statement he is picking on the fact that I used a different word once because I was searching for a way to get through to him, and assuming I was changing my stance when I was actually trying to better explain it. The third statement, he never makes clear what definitions he actually is using, and later references Wikipedia articles that... support "my" definition? I was confused. It took the other editor mgmg to figure out what definitions JA was using.

For an analogy, a fiercely opinionated conservative posting on the "American conservatism" article is fine. However, they should be able to clearly explain the reasons behind their views and the definitions they use of words- Clinton coddled terror, the Democrats are protectionists and opportunists, "liberal" means "Aggressive mommy state statist" in this usage, etc. Somebody who seemingly takes all conservative positions as pure fact and refuses to explain themselves- or explain themselves, but badly- is very hard to work with on an article, even if they do in fact have wonderful, great reasons behind their edits (and it becomes other editors jobs to figure out what they meant and qualify it properly).

As another comment, Wikipedia should be accessible to a general audience when possible. I don't normally invoke WP:OSTRICH, but if I'm having trouble understanding his statements, when I have a fair amount of experience at this kind of thing, what are the chances of random passerby? Philosophy isn't quantum physics. I firmly believe that philosophy, with a grand tradition of being done by amateurs in the streets a la Socrates, can and should be understood by everyone. SnowFire 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the issue at hand, but As another comment, Wikipedia should be accessible to a general audience when possible is something I strongly believe in, and is something I believe wikipedia should encourage. Most topics, no matter how obscure, can normally be worded in a manner understandable by a layperson (albeit with a potentially significant increase in length). I applaude you for that statement :) LinaMishima 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some subjects lend themselves to lack of clarity. Physics and math subjects can be unreadable due to necessary prerequisites. Philosophy can be conceptually obscure. Using words that require definitions that have subjective meaning in order to discuss philosophical issues related to subjective experience lends itself to semantic misunderstanding. For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

"There is considerable infelicity in Fodor's choice of terms. He is able to offer a cogent account of why methodological individualism counts as a methodological constraint. He argues that the desire to align terminological distinctions with objects having different causal powers is “one which follows simply from the scientist's goal of causal explanation and which, therefore, all scientific taxonomies must obey” (1987, 42). Thus it is a methodological precept. (Although one can see clearly here the stark contrast between Fodor's use of the term and that of Weber or Hayek, for whom the ability of the social scientist to provide something beyond merely causal explanation was what imposed the methodological commitment to the action-theoretic level of analysis.) It is simply unclear why Fodor chooses to call it individualism. With methodological solipsism, on the other hand, one can see why he calls it solipsism, but it is unclear what makes it methodological. Indeed, Fodor goes on to state that “solipsism (construed as prohibiting the relational taxonomy of mental states) is unlike individualism in that it couldn't conceivably follow from any general considerations about scientific goals and practices. ‘Methodological solipsism’ is, in fact, an empirical theory about the mind.”(1987, 43). Thus in Fodor's use of the terms, “methodological individualism” is not really individualistic, and “methodological solipsism” is not really methodological."[62] WAS 4.250 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made some pretty hostile comments on an afd earlier today [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], adding personal attacks both in edits and edit summaries. He was blocked [69], and I suppose he emailed the blocking admin and was unblocked shortly. Travb came to my talkpage to apologize [70] and removed the comments he made on the afd[71]...then, in less than an hour, he saw that rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was in trouble [72] and quickly arrived at arbcom [73] in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me since rootology filed an arbcom case against me that isn't going according to his plan. Would someone have a word with Trab and get him to calm down?--MONGO 19:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I complained about this user and personal attacks earlier and was ignored. I hope this shows admins the natur eof this users behavior, hopefully something is done. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack reports belong at WP:PAIN. I don't see any WP:pain entries in your immediate contrib history. If you consider this to be primarily a personal attack situation would you like it moved to the appropriate place? Crimsone 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider it to be a disruption issue, and no, I don't want it moved from here.--MONGO 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Travb has a long history of disruptive conduct. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, Travb's user page was just vandalized. Thought I'd report that here in case its not actually unrelated. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his edits and especially his edit summaries...he insults an arbcom member, insultingly mocks others comments by quoting them in his edit summaries,[74], [75], tests the waters on a proposed ruling that links to encyclopedia dramatica will be removed by adding this...can someone have a word with him and explain that whjile I welcome all comments to the arbcom case, I hardly can see why he needed to show up today for the first time and post over 40, yes forty, mostly harassing comments on the arbcom case.--MONGO 04:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he just has an explosive temper or what but here is where he called me a liar and other things and threatened to "report me." In the end, he apologized when he realized he was mistaken and I took no further action. I do think he needs a mentor because his reactions to editors is disruptive. Maybe even time away from political articles. --Tbeatty 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes right after he called Morton Devonshire a sockpuppet. I mean he does apologize after insulting people, doesnt that make it ok? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Travb's response[edit]

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

I was ready to move on and then Mongo filed this ANI[edit]

First and foremost, the comments on rootology's userpage which led MONGO to file this ANI was a notification to rootology that I would no longer be editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop:

"Anyway, I am unwatching the page, if you need more help, let me know."[76]

I felt like I had made my points, and that continuing to argue with MONGO was more harmful than beneficial. In addition, I know MONGO's past edit history, and his behavior towards others, since we are both interested in politics. (See MONGOs CONDUCT below) I had even predicted:

"I am waiting for you or another admin to start threating me for expressing my opinion. (Remember this sentence--if it doesnt happen, I will admit I am wrong)."[77]

Sure enough, as soon as MONGO saw the opportunity, he called this ANI. I wanted to put this episode behind us, but now MONGO has filed this ANI, "in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me".

My WP:NPA violation[edit]

The information about me being blocked is correct. I wrote:

"Keep Notice how the "official" version adovates of 9/11 (most notably MONGO) are voting to delete this article. This is a common tactic they have used repeatedly in an attempt to remove POV which does not conform to the "official" version of 9/11 and their own POV."

My comments violated WP:NPA, and because of my boot history, I was given no warning, and I was immediatly booted. I then emailed the admin, explained the situation, explained my past boot history, told the admin that I would erase all of the comments, and apologize to MONGO. In less than an hour, the admin unbooted me. MONGO had not commented on the WP:NPA violation, but I took the initiative and apologized writing:

"You may never see this edit, but I mentioned your name in a recent AfD you voted on. I removed the offensive comment. My apologies sir, happy editing."[78]

I realized my mistake and retrified it.

Since being booted for WP:NPA, I have asked the admin if my edits on this AfD were okay and ask him to let me know if there was any problems:

Please let me know if I am stepping over the line at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine I am being very careful not to even "skirt" WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I will stop editing this page if necessary, or change any edits I make.[79]

Mongo's accusations[edit]

MONGO wrote:

"...then, in less than an hour, he saw that rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was in trouble [80] and quickly arrived at arbcom [81] in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me since rootology filed an arbcom case against me that isn't going according to his plan."

I explained this in detail to MONGO on MONGO's arbritation page, which I will expand here:

WP:AGF First of all, there is no "retalitory effort against" MONDO. All this is speculation on MONGO's part:

"in what appears to be some retalitory effort against me since rootology filed an arbcom case against me that isn't going according to his plan."

The key word is "appears". Like the allegations on the MONGO arbitration that others have filed against MONGO. MONGO has no evidence supporting his statments. MONGO, please minimize your speculation and WP:AGF.

I got involved with MONGOs arbitration, because rootology messaged me.[82] That is what got me involved with MONGOs arbitration. I have known about MONGOs arbitration for weeks, and added no comments. As mentioned above, MONGO and I have known of each other since I became an editor in October 2005 with WSI. We frequent the same political sites. We also are in contact with the same people. Unfortunatly we have radically different views, which up until this point has never been a problem.

I can't remember running into you until a couple of months ago, if that. Your edit summaries and other details and incessant approach at the arbcom you are not even a signatory was harassment....40 plus edits...out of the blue...sure...you showed up right after you discussed rootology's situation with him.--MONGO 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo's second set of accusations[edit]

Mongo states: Looking over his edits and especially his edit summaries...he insults an arbcom member.

How is quoting a admins wikisite insulting? How is quoting his profession, which is brought up on his own talk page, insulting? I was asking a pointed question about the neutrality of the Arbitration. Your past behavior and inability to work with other wikiusers is written off as "excessive zeal" and other wikiusers, who happen to be your ideological opposites are severly criticized. As I wrote before, all I am asking for is a level playing field from a neutral non-political admin. How is this insulting? For having a rich history of saying some really nasty things to other editors, you seem to take criticism rather badly yourself.

No, I simply don't like it when you show up and try to dsirupt the arbcom because an obvious troll is probably going to be banned. Besides, the manner in which you quoted him and the sneering attitude is simply uncalled for. You go around accusing people like myself of being right wingers and POV pushers...look at yourself.--MONGO 07:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, can I go to bed already? I was just about to finish up, and say: "I will deal User:MONGO's" accusations later. And now this....sigh....I am not a "right winger", I am a definate left winger. I push my POV, but I do it differently then others. Wait, why are we on this subject? Aren't we talking about Fred? FYI, I just apologized to Fred on his user talk page. I hope this helps diffuse the situation. I don't know what this means on my talk page:

"I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom."[83]

But if you recall, I was finished with the MONDO arbcom, I had told rootology I was going to unwatch the page, and I was willing to let others gather the evidence against you in the MONGO arbcom. Then you initiated this ANI. Why do you continue to threaten me? How does this help to diffuse the situation? IMHO, and please correct me if I am wrong, your tone is very negative and threatening. Travb (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongos Conduct[edit]

Since Mongo has brought up edit history's and my user behavior, I would like to address MONGOs behavior and where all of this happened today.

This entire grievance happened on MONGOs arbitration page, which several users have brought up because of MONGO past and current behavior and violations of wikipedia policy. The arbitration deals with MONGOs past and current behavior.

MONGOs failure to work with others continued today: Full text here:[84] [85]

1. MONGO: WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:CIVIL "Not once had you posted anything to this arbcom unitl after you saw what was possibly going to happen to rootology...do you think I am blind? Go ahead and start another arbcom if you think I am so bad....quite obviously, this entire thing has been a giant troll-a-rama from the beginning...and your long list of blocks and other disruptive excesses are more than apparent. Bring it on, pal."

I await MONGO's apology for calling me a troll.

1. MONGO: WP:Civil "Frankly, I don't care what you do."
2. MONGO: WP:AGF "Are you insinuating that there is an admin cabal?"
3. MONGO: WP:AGF, WP:Civil "Go look at the evidence page...it's not going to be reposted here. You showed up because your buddy may end up indefinitely banned, and judging by his actions this morning, he hasn't helped his case one bit."

I asked MONGO to state the evidence against User:Badlydrawnjeff and explain what this meant: "No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed." When I showed he had no evidence against User:Badlydrawnjeff, and ask him what "excessive zeal" means, MONGO got incredibly hostile, as above. I continual asked MONGO to stay on topic, instead he:

1. WP:AGF Started to accuse me of being rootology's buddy, "You showed up because your buddy may end up indefinitely banned"
2. WP:NPA Started accusing me of being a troll. "quite obviously, this entire thing has been a giant troll-a-rama from the beginning"
3. WP:NPA Started to bring up my past block history "and your long list of blocks and other disruptive excesses are more than apparent"

I asked him repeatedly to stay on topic. He did not.

To defend myself, I followed the converstation and asked him the same questions he was asking me:

1. About his edit history and
2. His association with Fred.

When I realized their was no point in continuing the converstaion, I unwatched the page, and told rootology I would leave. (See #I was ready to move on and then Mongo filed this ANI).

Ha...you're the one counciling rootology, consoling him on his talk page and insulting others in the process...do you see me post anything on Fred Bauders page?--MONGO 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongos supporters[edit]

MONGOs two supporters Tbeatty, Zer0faults, are active editors of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. A page which Mongo has actively edited. There has been a ongoing edit war and the case is currently in RfC and a mediator is taking the case, actions which I initiated. I could line up just as many editors to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America who would support my version of events.

The only other supporter, Kelly Martin, is an admin who I had contact with several months ago. I agreed to no longer discuss the issues that we were discussing. If Kelly Martin would like to reopen this discussion, and give me her blessing to start talking about the issues we were debating about, then I will discuss this issue further.

What? I have made a total of three edits to that article! I was never edit warring there and haven't even editied there in three weeks. I'm not involved in either the mediation or the Rfc on that article.--MONGO 08:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I am simply pointing out Tbeatty, Zer0faults past association with you, and I pointed out that: I could line up just as many editors to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America who would support my version of events. If you want to go through all of the edits on this wikipage, etc., we can do that. Travb (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've edited that article twice, one day apart. Three weeks ago. I would not call myself an active editor. I commented on the talk page I believe but that, too, was weeks ago. I would also not say I have a "relationship" with MONGO though I have seen his edits. My impression is that he was a fair and productive editor. I don't even think you could classify my comment here as supporting MONGO. Rather, I comment on my interaction with you, when you accused another editor falsely of being a sockpuppet. You misinterpreted a diff log and I pointed out where you made a mistake in your interpretation. You called me a liar on more than one occasion on the sock accusation page. You later apologized. That is not supporting MONGO, but pointint out my experience which seems to mirror what we see here. Agressive personal attack followed by passive apology. I believe that your apologies are sincere but your behavior is a pattern and your behavior is disruptive. I do think that you and wikipedia would benefit if you had a mentor and if you refrained from editing articles that invoke a strong emotional response until you understand more about the process and comport your behavior to the process.--Tbeatty 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to resolve this dispute[edit]

• Option one: MONGO can file a request for comment on me, if he wishes, this is what he suggested for me to do today against him.
• Option two: I quote:

Personal attack reports belong at WP:PAIN. I don't see any WP:pain entries in your immediate contrib history. If you consider this to be primarily a personal attack situation would you like it moved to the appropriate place? Crimsone 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I can file a WP:PAIN also. (See #Mongos Conduct above)

Update[edit]

Since initiating this ANI User:MONGO has written on my talk page:

WP:Civil Trolling and harassment

WP:NPA WP:AGF You have trolled and added many harassing comments today...I think you are harassing me. If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions. I have already brought the matter up at AN/I.[86]--MONGO 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF...Look at your edit summaries and your commentary ...talk about a complete failure to assume good faith.--MONGO 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Full comments here My response here

WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:NPA "Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member? No doubt, you showed up at arbcom to pick a fight immediately after discussing matters with rootology...who spent yesterday attacking numerous wikipedians in the worst way he could....guess what that makes you look like? A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom."[87] (emphasis my own)

(Please let me finish explaining my side)

Travb (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

How much room here is that going to take...how about you apologize to Fred Bauder for the comments you made about him, and your massive loss of good faith.--MONGO 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is there a word limit here? You have made quite a lot of accusations MONGO. I want to show that many of them have absolutly no merit. I don't want to be booted by an admin for behavior that I never did. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop#Badlydrawnjeff for an example of this behavior.)

"how about you apologize to Fred Bauder for the comments you made about him" See my section about my comments to Fred #Mongo's second set of accusations. If Fred wants me to apologize to him for calling him a lawyer, and pointing out a template on his user page, I will happily apologize. In fact, if it helps difuse the situation, I will apologize to Fred right now.[[88]]

On a completly unrelated note (Please see the fallacy of logic: Tu quoque):

I would appreciate you striking out all of your "troll" comments.

"and your massive loss of good faith" WP:AGF "...accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well." Thanks in advance ;) Travb (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside Comment[edit]

Oh for God's sake, GIVE IT A REST. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, are you an admin? If you are, can you promise that I won't get booted for MONGO's comments today? If you can promise that, I will stop.

MONGO made a lot of accusations, which I personally feel have no merit. I would love to go to bed right now, but I don't want a message on my user page tommorow that I was booted for accusations which I personally feel have no merit.

Sorry to bother you. I didn't initiate this ANI, and I wish it had never been started.

I vaguely remember you Calton, but don't remember were :( Travb (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have been harassing and insulting myself and Fred Bauder. If I wasn't having a dispute with you, I'd block you right now for a week at least...your block log definitely seems to indicate that you are a problem.--MONGO 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not blocking him, but in this situation, were I an admin today, I think I would... Needs some time out. Georgewilliamherbert 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote Kelly Martin "we do have a lot of petulant children on Wikipedia. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Hopefully Travb stops playing his game MONGO, but just remember its all passive agressive, the idea is to get a response out of you that he can then add more complaints about. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 08:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Calton. Travb, what admin action are you hoping to achieve by this? This is not the forum for you and Mongo to have a private argument. --ajn (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is far too lengthy and disjointed for ANI; it needs a better format (e.g. RfC/RfAr) and much better organization. Also, Calton may not be an admin, but his words carry more weight than many users who are admins, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 08:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: what admin action are you hoping to achieve by this?

As I wrote above:

MONGO made a lot of accusations, which I personally feel have no merit. I would love to go to bed right now, but I don't want a message on my user page tommorow that I was booted for accusations which I personally feel have no merit...can you promise that I won't get booted for MONGO's comments today? If you can promise that, I will stop.

RE: what admin action are you hoping to achieve by this? This is not the forum for you and Mongo to have a private argument.

I can't personally speak for MONGO who initiated this ANI today. I agree 100% that this is not the forum. I wish that Mongo had let me move on, unwatch the Arbcom page, and let us go our seperate ways, instead you all have to listen to this ANI. Sorry

I am quitting now. Sorry to bother everyone.Travb (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure apologize about alot of things, perhaps you should have never went after MONGO on the Arbcom issue in the first place. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 08:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think ArbCom are quite capable themselves of handling any material posted to them. We don't have to worry about that. This whole conversation is a real mess. Let's just stop it at this point, draw a line under it, forget it, AGF, and allow everyone to show their true good intent by not perpetuating it any more and remembering the purpose of this project is to create encyclopedia articles. That purpose seems to get lost at times. Tyrenius 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been moved to the talk page of WP:LAME. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that so moving it is showing a bit of a POV! :) ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving a discussion having nothing whatsover to do with edit warring to a page about lame edit wars isn't 'POV' so much as just... odd. Especially given that the discussion in question was over until AMiB revived it with the move. The normal course of action would be to simply archive it... which indeed has already been done. --CBD 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the POV to me (I saw it in a funny way) was saying that the discussion was itself some sort of a war, I guess. Standard archiving seems the best approach to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Having looked at other sections, I realize that I may have written this in a wrong place. Sorry about that if that is the case.

Mike18xx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was reported to ANI before. Now, he is making personal attacks on living scholars and had distorted other editor's comments.

Please have a look at this where he distorts my edit. When user:Itaqallah noted and fixed this vandalism [89], Mike showed his persistence by this revert and calling Itaqallah's edit as vandalism [90]. But later he self-reverted.

Mike's comments on Bernard Lewis who is a notable living scholar:

• Bernard Lewis is a *hack*

• I consider (Lewis) to be a notorious bonehead...

Mike's comments on Carl Ernst who is another living scholar:

• Carl Ernst is a hack.

Mike's interpretation of wikipedia policies: "Bernard Lewis" is not a reliable source for wikipedia since [91] , [92]

Mike is not contributing to wikipedia in a civil manner and removes sourced material (e.g. [93]). --Aminz 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been ignored twice before reporting his behavior of which there seems to be a growing consensus that there is a large problem with it. He has been blocked several times before for his personal attacks, incivility, and refusal to accept consensus already.--Jersey Devil 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a certain amount of "complaining" about admins issuing civility warnings. That said, I gave Mike one yesterday and was planning to see if it "took" with an eye for going for a much longer block. I think Mike has a point when he alleges Aminz isn't quite perfect revert war wise but Mike's style of editing (with partial reversion happening in successive edits, with some changes thrown in so the article never returns to exactly the same state) makes it very hard to tell. Personally I think this user isn't going to reform but I could be wrong. However, when I saw his contributions after the warning I gave, including this one, I think the warning didn't take. Blocked for a week. This time. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Jersey Devil... I'm not sure you're being ignored. I've been keeping an eye on this user for some time, periodically. It's just a hard case to come to grips with. This user is, in my view, fairly skilled at skirting the line. ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. (This is me JD posting from uni)--128.6.205.109 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited initial post ONLY to add more information on user (block log, contribs etc) ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This section covers materials related to the issued raised in the section above.

The following is crossposted from User talk:CBDunkerson#Hauke/User talk:Ezhiki#Hauke:
Hi, Conrad! Regarding this, could you, please, refer me to the appropriate page? I am having trouble locating the RFCU you mentioned. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tobias_Conradi and particularly this edit where Pschemp acknowledged that they were separate individuals and this where Essjay closed the request with the conclusion that was the case. Pschemp has subsequently argued that 'maybe they really ARE sockpuppets', but if she wanted to make such a case she should have pressed for the checkuser to be fully reviewed rather than saying there that they weren't sockpuppets... and then turning around and saying 'yes they are' after short-circuiting the process for determining that. --CBD 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*That* RFCU, eh? I was under impression there was another one. Since there isn't, and the results of this one are pretty clear, I'll be unblocking both accounts—there is no good reason to permablock two innocent individuals, although I very much doubt they are going to return to editing after such a nice welcome we gave them. Thanks, Conrad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I understand policy,if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets (or acting like the same user) it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are, if the action is circumventing a block, the other users are blockable as well. I think this unblock was incorrect. Please bring this to AN/I so consensus can be sought. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As Lar requested, I am posting this here for everyone to review. Regarding the situation at hand, please note the following:

• Both users Hauke and Chrisjj2 were permablocked as sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi. As the links provided by CBD above attest, the person who requested the CU agreed that the accounts were not sockpuppets, but meatpuppets.
• According to WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, the meatpuppets issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion.
• A look at Hauke's and Chrisjj2's contributions is sufficient to see that neither user specifically participated in or influenced a particular vote or area of discussion, hence they don't meet the sockpuppet/meatpuppet criteria.
• By Lar's logic above (if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets... it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are... the other users are blockable as well), as applied to the edits of users in question, if I were to edit tango-related articles around the time of Tobias's block, I would have been blockable as well, because, even though I am not him, I am a friend of his, am associated with him, and would be acting like him (by editing the articles on the same topic he is interested in).
• According to Lar, the purpose of these two users' edits were to circumvent Tobias's block. I find this accusation a bit strange considering the nature of the contributions of said users. Furthermore, as these users were clearly identified not to be Tobias by the RFCU, the sockpuppetry allegation is inapplicable.

That said, I would certainly appeciate a review of my actions (i.e., unblocking the accounts of both Hauke and Chrisjj2) by the community of administrators.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A look at their contributions shows [94] and [95]. New users don't start talking about some random "User:Tobias Conradi" who they've never encountered before and have no reason to have any knowledge of, on RFPP citing semi-protect policy no less. If not sockpuppets of User:Tobias Conradi, they are at least sockpuppets of someone who is circumventing something. —Centrx→talk • 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] These two users are friends of Tobias; no one ever denied that. Both edited Wikipedia in the past anonymously. Chris was asked by Tobias to ask the questions he asked, because Tobias was blocked and his talk page was protected (in my view, injustly, but why and how that happened is not the topic of this particular thread), leaving him no other means of communications. Is asking a question on someone's behalf a crime now somehow? How can you say that Chrisjj2's account was created with one agenda (a quote from WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets) if only a few hours passed between the first edit from this account and the permablock? What happened to AGF? Innocent until proved guilty? What kind of harm was done when the question was asked? What's more important, why insist on keeping the permablock now? What purpose would it serve? In what way would it benefit Wikipedia?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough writeup Ëzhiki While I think we can't tar with the meatpuppet brush TOO broadly, (or else all people that ever edit bridge articles are meatpuppets of each other!) Tobias has said these are personal friends of his, and they turned up during rather suspicious times. SO I think the block was a good one and the meatpuppet charge warranted.

THAT said, the desired outcome here is that we get constructive edits from peacable users... how exactly that happens isn't the main thing. so with this now well documented, I'm not as sussed, although I still think it wasn't a warranted unblock. (Rather, I'd posit it as evidence of CBD taking the wrong side again) BUT... I just want to put in that if either of these users increases frequency of edits primarily while Tobias is blocked, as they did in the past, and aren't around much the rest of the time, or if they are editing basically to do things related to Tobias while he's blocked, I will not hesitate to reblock. On the other hand if they edit constructively they have nothing to worry about. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the RFCU discussion linked above found, "everyone involved is of the opinion that these are different people" I don't see grounds for a sock-puppet accusation. Lar suggests that 'meatpuppets may also be indef blocked', but that is not actually how the policy reads... what it allows is that if there is confusion as to whether someone is a 'sock' vs 'meat' puppet then they may be blocked. However, we cannot just block a known 'meat puppet' indefinitely... if a blocked user were to ask me to make a comment to an AfD discussion for them and I did so I would be 'acting as a meat puppet' on their behalf... but so long as I identified the source of the view and why they didn't give it themself I can't imagine that being a 'blockable offense' at all. In this case another person spoke in defense of the user while they were blocked and their talk page protected... if that was a 'sock' then it should be indefinitely blocked. But a 'meat' puppet doing the same should not be... and as even the original complainant/blocker at the time acknowledged that this account WAS a different person this seems like a proper unblock to me - indeed I had asked Pschemp to reverse it and was considering doing so myself. --CBD 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Lar, if, after unblocking, they start editing basically to do things related to Tobias while he's blocked, I will be the first to re-block them. You have my word for it. Least of all I am willing to stand for people only to be proved a fool by them later.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a point. The checkuser did not prove that these users were not sockpuppets. It simply didn't prove that they were. It's perfectly fine, in my personal opinion, to apply the rule that if all of an account's edits look like sockpuppet edits, they probably are. Nandesuka 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Put more succinctly: if you edit like a sockpuppet, don't be surprised when you are treated like one. Nandesuka 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It was denied, innocent to proven guilty? Assume good faith ... Anyway since there is no voting and the edit to tango wasnt one in contention and the other user did a seperate action by asking a question for a real life friend, I am not sure what harm was done. Perhaps unblocking the question asker will give him a moment to edit. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty makes sense when the cost of error, e.g. putting an innocent person in prison, is high. The greatest cost in this case is possibly discouraging persons who could be productive future contributors, which is less likely in this case if they were created accounts only because they were summoned to defend their friend. But they are still free to become productive contributors, at most they couldn't edit for 24 hours and lost their favorite nicknames. And the fact remains that, if not all having the same IP, they could all be the same person using various shell accounts. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Nandesuka, I sincerely hope this same line of reasoning is not applied to you if you ever have an unfortune of landing in court in real life (which I by no means want to happen to you). I can partially justify your logic as applied to Wikipedia, but refusing a review of a situation post factum is something no good admin can afford. Other than that, the question at hand is not "what should have been done", but rather "should we give two decent people another chance to edit Wikipedia after what may have been a mistake".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser was denied because EVERYONE involved agreed that they were not sockpuppets. Let that sink in. Everyone. The admin with checkuser privileges, the accused puppetteer, and even the person who originally made the accusation all agreed that they were not sock puppets. If that's not good enough... oi! --CBD 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that they are alleged to be acting like meatpuppets, or were, and doing things solely (or mostly, a little positive contribution sprinkled in to make it look good...) to aid Tobias in circumvention of a block. SO I supported their block at the time, and still think it was a good block but I'm willing to now suspend my thinking and go back to assuming good faith. For now. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lar, you've just pretty much voiced a good chunk of my point of view. Considering the limited information available and emotions running high at the time of the block, the block was within the limits of policies—the users were blocked as alleged sockpuppets/meatpuppets. However, considering the information that came into light later and the nature of these users' contributions (as described above), it should be pretty clear that the block was only marginally justified, and should not have been (kept) indefinite. If we agree on that, I propose to close this thread for good, leave both Hauke and Chrisjj2 alone, and give them a chance to participate in this fine encyclopedia project where we are having so much fun. I stand by that my unblocking them was justified and the right thing to do. I stand by that the users should be re-blocked if all they do from this point onward is to continue serving as Tobias's meatpuppets. If you disagree with my actions and my line of thinking, I invite you to explain in details (preferrably at my talk page) why I am wrong and what I should have done instead.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the legal system, not the court of public opinion. Furthermore, since admins are judge, jury, and executioner, the concept is effectively meaningless. Arbcom has upheld the principle that users who edit in a manner indistinguisable from other users may be held to the same restrictions regardless of actual IP-based sockpuppetry. After all, the use of (now blocked) open proxies can make edit tracking a tricky proposition. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Chrisjj2 has noted edited in the same manner as the other two and 1 only shares one article in common. Considering he admits to being friends with someone else, I dont think its very odd they may share an interest. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If Hauke isn't a sock/meatpuppet then why did he suddenly spring to life after 3 months of inactivity exactly one hour after Tobias was blocked and request to be unblocked in the same grammar style as Tobias? pschemp | talk 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

People who live in the same country often speak the same, I am not sure, perhaps I am missing something, but they admit to knowing eachother. If the account went active and he made an edit, a good edit, not vandalism to an article for a friend with an account he already had, its not really meat/sock puppetry. Also I guess noone is arguing that Chriss should remained blocked then since he didnt make an article edit. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hauke's IP is in a different country than Tobias's. One that speaks English. As for Chris, he sent me an email way back when this happened saying he had a dynamic IP, that he only edited to help Tobias and he didn't care if the account was blocked. pschemp | talk 04:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User 70.16.248.128 is repeatedly posting accurate racist quotations in the Lyndon B. Johnson article regardless of the efforts of the other editors. He has violated the 3R rule. But it's more serious--putting nasty racist remarks in a highly visible article should be off-limits. It humiliates black and Hispanic kids and degrades Wiki. The quotations--accurate--were selected by 70.16.248.128 because he thinks LBJ's crudity has to be exposed. Rjensen 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait - I'm confused - if they are accurate, why should they not be there? --Charlesknight 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a clear 3RR violation. However I have to say, the quotes are well sourced and if they are accurate they can be included in the article. I am also going to block User:Libs23 for 3RR. This needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article by all sides in this dispute. Gwernol 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

as someone who has not edited the discussion, I have started a discussion on the talkpage and will attempt to bring parties together. --Charlesknight 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Charles. I hope that will move the matter forward (I have also not been involved in the Lyndon Johnson article in the past). Neither side in this particular dispute comes off well and they both need to talk to each other. Hopefully your intervention will help. Thanks, Gwernol 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki needs a policy on hate speech--in this case quoting the hate speech of dead politicians in order to ridicule minorities in 2006. use of Wiki to post hate speech should be off limits, The quotations were selected from many thousands by one person (User 70.16.248.128) (that is OR) for the purpose of "exposing" Johnson's racism. The editor did not put it in context and does not use any of the many expert studies that have analyzed LBJ's language and his attitude toward blacks and hispanics. (The editor involved is very poorly informed about black voting, so he clearly has not beed reading.) For example the transcripts use "nigra" which most readers will read (incorrectly) as "nigger". Rjensen 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a discuss now better suited to the article page, can I suggest that we continue there (although I might be awhile as it's friday night and I'm off to the pub for a bit). --Charlesknight 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure LBJ wasn't saying "Negro," and it sounds like "nigra" because of his accent? LBJ was the last President to make use of the term "Negro" to refer to black persons in the US. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took it upon himself to restore a bunch of the vandal glorification pages. All of these were dealing with obvious vandalism, which doesn't need to be tracked or glorified, simply reverted, ignored, and the vandal blocked. The principles of WP:DENY strongly support this. In this past week we've seen CheckUser evidence that one of our glorified vandals, Mr. Bobby Willy, was himself operating sock accounts and contributing to a lot of the long term abuse pages. He'd vandalize with one sock then add it to his glorification page to the other. And then once it was deleted he posted complaining messages to ANI saying about how he was going to quit because the game "wasn't fun anymore". So why are we giving him back his vandal page? I recommend the immediate re-deletion of these pages. --Cyde Weys 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored them because, after asking on the talk page of WP:DENY for evidence that shows that these pages encourage vandalism, I didn't get any. I did get some personal attacks however. I'm interested in being shown wrong here (really!), and I'm definitely interested in finding some compromise, but in absence of productive discussion I have no choice but to do what I think is right. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly anyone reads that talk page, I imagine. And of course you "have a choice"; you can "do what you think is right", or you can go to a wider venue to discover that lots of people disagree with you. One of them is, basically, wheel warring; are you sure you want to be doing that? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't talk to me. Standard admin courtesy says that you talk with the admin first before reversing an admin action. I don't think I've ever read the talk page of WP:DENY. So why would you comment there rather on my talk page? --Cyde Weys 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And can you give me specific links to where exactly on Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition you proposed to undelete these vandalism pages, and show me the personal attacks you got as a response? --Cyde Weys 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this comment by Tony Sidaway was somehow perceived by Ryan Delaney as some sort of "personal issue", and he felt that was grounds to cut off the discussion and just go undelete all of the pages. I'm just not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I note you also restored a page which was deleted via MFD, and a couple of redirects which would also be deleted as a result of that MFD, reading the page it appears you have taken exception to one persons comments and had a knee jerk reaction, indeed declaring that you would no longer participate minutes before enacting the recreations. --pgk 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm incredulous at the reasoning employed here. Volumes of discussion on this question have been filled on this noticeboard, at MfD, DRV, and various other locations. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Ryan he has my consensus for restoring the pages, I just wanted you to know that. Lapinmies 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you endorse using sysop tools as a retaliation for a perceived personal attack, though? --Cyde Weys 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A consensus of one? Did you mean to phrase it that way? Mackensen (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"...and I am unanimous in that." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Undeleting the vandal pages was not a good decision. Discussions here (and at MfD) on a number of occasions were supportive of having the vandal pages deleted. Agree with deleting the lot again -- Samir धर्म 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Restoring those pages was unwise. There is a consensus that these pages need to go. Undoing Cyde's action without first discussing it would be wrong in any case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting all of them again would be a good idea, given that the restoration went against AfD in one instance and in all instances is against WP:DENY and the best interests of the project. I find Ryan's decision to undelete extremely unfortunate given that it goes against a number of other admin actions without significant efforts to talk to them first. --Improv 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Though I am not going to walk around calling everyone's judgement "unfortunate", I don't feel we need these pages at all, especially considering WP:DENY.Voice-of-All 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was already discussed on MfD. We have seen evidence that it is working, from an earlier thread on this page that "Mr. Pelican Shit" was promising to stop if he got his page back, and a lot more. Please let them stay deleted. Grandmasterka 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I already undid one of the restorations, which was on a page that was deleted with a valid MFD. Curiously, the last version of that page even had {{mfd}} on it, which Ryan then removed. Thus, he had to have known that it already had an MFD ... and then restored it anyway. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Is it the restoration of the glorification pages or the wheel warring? These are two separate issues that require separate responses. Isopropyl 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a non-issue. Ryan made an error in reversing administrator actions without asking around first. This was rash and impolite, but easily fixed: the pages are now deleted again, in accordance with the standing community decision, and should remain so unless some further discussion results in their being labeled useful. — Dan | talk 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What community decision? Many admins are against this so calling it a community decision is wrong. Lapinmies 07:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned with some Usernames that seem to be clear variations of my own Username. Because I am the party directly interested, I will not affect any action on this myself. I would, however, request that other Administrators look into it, as I believe it may be grounds for blocking, unless a Username change is requested voluntarily by the owners, under our current Blocking policy (Usernames → ...deliberately confusing...). Although some of them are inactive, I would say that it would still represent a liability. Here's the list:

• Redux! (talk · contribs) — inactive
• Redux S.R.S (talk · contribs) — inactive
• Redux78 (talk · contribs) — one edit
• Reduxed (talk · contribs) — two edits, plus inflamatory statement in user page
• Reduxx (talk · contribs) — 21 edits

Borderline (those are also close, but the variation may be distinctive enough &#150; I'll leave the call to another admin):

• Reduxthree (talk · contribs) — 8 edits
• Reduxtion (talk · contribs) — 26 edits

Thank you in advance. Redux 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the names have been blocked, but I am leaving Redux S.R.S alone. VoiceofAll is also blocking some of them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zach. And thanks to VoA too! I appreciate it. Redux 02:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

in Circumcision and Genital modification and mutilation - personal attacks at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74547340&oldid=74186332 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenital_modification_and_mutilation&diff=74453398&oldid=74451415

I haven't reverted his latest vandalism because It could be seen as a content dispute. I consider it vandalism because he's blanking information and altering it in full knowledge that he is violating NPOV rules and has blasted anyone who disagrees with him as "a bigot" or a "symapthizer of a fringe group" or "ignorant of the religious significance" (even though I - who am an antireligious atheist have told him that I am in no way opposed to him volunarily getting himself circed and asked the rhetorical question that "would not voluntary circumcision when one is old enough to consent not be more religiously meaningful?") - i'm tired of his POV-pushing and his personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him Lordkazan 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that you are trying to point out disruptive beaviour (?), because I've already issued npa2 for the personal attacks as per your WP:PAIN report (good faith note for the future; You may like to issue warning templates to the required level (as long as you can justify them) rpior to listing on the noticeboards :) --Crimsone 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably blind, but I never good find the list of the NPA violation templates :P, and yes he's being disruptived - another user pointed out to me what he's changing in Circumcision may qualify for removal under wikipedia rules, but I know (From his previous behavior and statements) that is not why he's removing them. I've been trying my damnest to try and get Circucmsion to be less POV - right now it's very pro-circ POV and he's adding more pro-pov to it. I'm getting really frustrated with the bunch of editors squatting that page, and the edit history will show that I'm not the first circ opponant to come in and try and make the article balanced and get fed up with several regulars preventing the article from being made neutral Lordkazan 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check out {{npa2}}, {{npa4-n}}, etc. Isopropyl 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article to break the ongoing edit war. Please note that the reporter of "POV-pushing edits/personal attacks" is far from being innocent here: [96] [97] [98] May I suggest all parties to please tone it down, WP is not a place for political/anti/religious activism. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep my POV comments to the talk pages and try to keep wikipedia NPOV thank you very much. 12.226.237.65 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (oops that was me, wasn't logged in Lordkazan 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) )

I agree with that action. From the message I just recieved on my talk page, I'd say that there is quite a heated dispute here where all parties need to calm down. In the interests of accuracy and fairness, I was just informed that, Lordkazan has also launched a vicious attack or two in the other direction, but I am yet to see a diff for these. In any case, I've said this purely to comment on possible conduct - personal attack reports and diffs really belong at WP:PAIN. --Crimsone 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above comment, I've looked at this dispute in some depth now, as has somebody else. I have spent a truly rediculous amount of time on this, and have proposed a solution at User_talk:Dasondas. Failing this, I would suggest that arbitration is the next step. --Crimsone 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly ever block for personal attacks, but this is ridiculous. I have blocked Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for extreme personal attacks here and especially here. Note that the obscenities are transparent versions of the names of real editors who're active on Talk:Hilary Putnam. Please review this block and feel free to change it (please post your rationale here if you do). Is a week too much? Too little? This is not a newbie. He is generally a combative editor with a tendency to edit war and three 3RR blocks to his name, but nothing like this. As I consider the attacks in the second link I cite outrageous, I blocked right away, without previous warning, which might be a reason to reduce the block. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Looks fine to me; we can do without this kind of behavior, since it is corrosive and drives away good editors. If he/she apologises on the talk page, then I might suggest shortening the block/unblocking. Antandrus (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been attempting to mediate a bitter dispute on the CSICOP talk page between Davkal and (primarily) Askolnick and KarlBunker. There have been multiple incivilities and some personal attacks in both directions over the last month; I've refrained from doing more than asking the participants to tone it down, since I wanted to try to get them to engage, rather than use formal warnings and process. I agree this block is warranted; and in fact Davkal's comments are not related to the CSICOP page, though Askolnick is one of those he attacks. However, if and when he returns, I wouldn't mind having a third party, unconnected to the mediation, keep an occasional eye on that talk page and make firmer requests for civility (from all parties) than I feel able to do as the mediator. If anyone is interested and willing, leave me a note. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, it's not that he has not been warned about NPA. I've warned him several times that I would file a complaint against his disruptive conduct if it continues (I'm glad you've now filed one.) He knows that personal attacks and 3RR violations are blockable offenses. He can't really complain that no one warned him. BTW, he's also now vandalizing my comments, such as these, which include some vulgar comments: [99] [100] Yesterday, I placed a vandalism warning on his talk page. Askolnick 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This place seems to have gone crazy over the past few days. Anyway, those edits were way beyond the pale. Some people could quibble about the length of the block, perhaps, but I won't. I think it was well within your discretion in the circumstances. Metamagician3000 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The block seems solidly reasonable to me. Also, note the excellent explanation of the block given on the user's talk page- this is an example for us all. Friday (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also impressed by the lucid block explanation. -- Samir धर्म 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you guys. The user didn't like my post as much as you did, I guess... :-/ but please don't anybody extend the block over his intemperate reaction to it. As I've said before on this page, a block is a shock; it's not a good time to inspect the user's talkpage for civility. Look the other way. Please compare Mexican politicians and BLP#Upped to indef below. Blocked users didn't use to be able to edit even their own talkpages. If their ability to comment the block on their talkpage is going to be used against them in this way, it might be better to remove that ability. That's not what I think we should do, though; I think we should make it policy, or at least practice, to not extend blocks over incivility towards the blocking admin. Admins have too much power to be so fucking touchy. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Now that doesn't sound at all like my "meatpuppet" (as Davkal calls you - among his less obscene comments). While I would have liked to see another administrator pounce on him for attacking you for doing your job, your argument makes sense, mostly. Allowing occassional steam venting is a good way to avoid even worse disruption. It's much easier to ignore an angry outburst than to have to cope with an editor's calculated and vengeful disruption caused by pent-up anger. However, may I suggest that this turning-the-other-cheek policy be restricted to only one cheek? If Davkal continues his outrageous personal attacks, this latest vulgar attack should be remembered and considered in deciding how long he will be blocked.

A review of Davkal's record of contributions shows that he has contributed next to nothing to Wiki articles. However, he has caused an enormous amount of disruption and made others waste a great deal of their time responding to his disruptive behavior. He's only worked on a few articles. When his changes are resisted by other editors, he launches an escallating campaign of disruption to force them to accept his edits. So far, blocks have not persuaded him to adopt less destructive methods of persuasion. And this latest block has only made him more furious. I don't think a week will be a long enough time out for him to decide to change his ways. As his disruptive attacks keep escallating, so should his time-outs. Askolnick 12:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The R. L. Stine page has been vandalized several times by people who do not use Wikipedia usernames and I would like to request that the page be protected so that further vandalism does not occur. Thanks for the consideration in advance. --Dleav 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This should go under WP:RFPP, if I am correct. --physicq210 05:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes technically should go to the above mentioned page, but this doesn't look like a case where protection is called for. Vandalism on this article is light, 4 in the past week. Generally semi-protection (stops anons/new users from editting) is used when vandalism is more like 4 vandal edits an hour. When the vandalism is moderate to low, it's best just to revert it. And this is pretty much they'd say at the other page, sorry. --W.marsh 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite repeated and final warnings, User:Raja Flattery has continued to blank their talk page. Part of this was under the earlier name User:The 89 guy which was moved earlier today to User:Raja Flattery. User:Raja Flattery has since been moved to User:Raja Lon Flattery (where ironically confessions to earlier vandalism exist). I don't understand how, but User talk:Raja Lon Flattery is protected from editing. I'm certainly confused ... Nfitz 05:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to sort this out now. --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the move of his userpage and the talk page and left a note on his talk page about the proper procedure of changing username. The User talk:Raja Lon Flattery was never protected (the notice was added by the user himself). --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah ... they fooled me! But what about his talk page blanking - shouldn't User:The 89 guy (and I guess the User:Raja Lon Flattery sockpuppet) be blocked for that at this stage? I've just restored the warnings on User talk:The 89 guy that they had blanked earlier today. Nfitz 06:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my - they just reverted the warnings again, and are also using User:89.32.1.82, which they have previously acknowledged is their IP. Can someone block all these? Nfitz 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

and, I'm realising, has undone the revert of his User Page move. Nfitz 06:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no need to refer to the plural. although there are many people using that ip, i (the 89 guy user) was the one who tried unsuccesfully to change my account to "raja flattery" and "raja lon flattery". my original intetion was not to create sockpuppets. however, as a resolution for this dispute nfitz cares so much for, i will cease using any of these accounts, which should be either deleted or blocked indefinitely. once again, my account was "the 89 guy" and, attempting to move pages, i accidentally created accounts "raja flattery" and "raja lon flattery". my intention was neither to practice sockpuppetry nor to encourage it. that's why i propose the deletion or indefinite blocking of these accounts so that no one can use them. as for me, i will try to register for a new one as soon as the above mentioned accounts are rendered useless.The 89 guy 12:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't using plural ... was using 'they' as third-person singular, as I wouldn't want to misidentify sex. How do we get some administrator action here? Nfitz 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I discovered Emir214 forged my RfA a couple of months ago. I brought this up at the main RfA talk page. As a result, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Emir214 was speedy deleted by Winhunter and Netsnipe blocked him for a week. --Chris S. 06:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly removed warnings from his talk page after they were replaced first by User:Someguy0830 and then by myself. He has also told me to "fuck off and stop being an asshole" for the replacements, and seems to think that he owns his page on Wikipedia and can do whatever he likes with it. ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 09:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a week's vacation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned user has returned on 84.9.211.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), vandalising categories and issuing personal attacks. Needs blocking. Lancsalot 12:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone got 'im. --InShaneee 15:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I recently posted a welcome message on to User:Kcoelho by accident (instead of the talk page). I was wondering if the page could be deleted for the benefit of the user in question (they can start their page without my mistake in the history). Thanks. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. — FireFox ^(talk) _{15:53, 09 September 2006}

To whom it may concern:

I opened an account on Wikipedia today (9/9/2006 U.S. EST) and shortly afterwards was accused of being a sockpuppet of some other individual(s) -- who evidently is/are malfeasants of some sort -- by one User:Demiurge, who has taken it on him/herself to delete all my edits (except one, see below re Robin Livingstone).

I used the (helpme) function and received this reply:

"Well since I have no way of verifying the truth of otherwise of if you really only started today (From my perspective someone who genuinely started today would say that, but so would someone who is trying to pretend they only started today). I suggest you discuss it with the person who believes you are a sockpuppet, I have no magic wand to make them believe differently." -- User:pgk 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the individual (User:Demiurge) making the charges against me explaining that I was not who he evidently is mistaking me for, but as of the last time I checked I have not heard back from him/her - evidently he/she does not deign to communicate with me.

This boils down to some unfortunate coincidence:

a) My ISP is similar to some malfeasants, but all I can say, not being a computer systems expert, is that I live in Manhattan, NY, in a building filled with people with computers, some of whom undoubtedly use Wikipedia.

b) My new page edit (Robin Livingstone) was not deleted or recommended for deletion, and a former editor of that exact same page was none other than User:pgk -- talk about coincidences!! And why did not User:Demiurge recommend that page for deletion, perhaps he liked its contents, which would indicate extreme subjectivity and abuse of power (although what power he has as a non-administrator is not clear to me, as a first time user).

c) User:pgk referred to my "apparent familiarity with Wikipedia" as a point which denigrates my credibility. This is absurd. I have friends who use Wikipedia and the basics of editing are not hard to grasp, although obviously not everyone has the proper temperament. As to the voluminous rules and regulations of Wikipedia, I am afriad I have barely made a dent in such lengthy reading material. I have a relatively short attention span.

In sum, I do not believe my edits should be vandalized by someone who simply suspects something, and I believe that there should be a checks and balances system to force him to reverse his destructive ways and desist until he is authorized to do what he/she is doing (he is not an administrator, which I have discerned from his/her own userpage).

Thanks for your help in this matter.

Jerry Garcia was the greatest 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty clear cut case of sockpuppetry. For the evidence see his talk page. Another question I wonder is how did you find the Incidents noticeboard with no prior knowledge of Wikipedia beforehand? — The Future 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not to mention that his first edit ever was to his userpage and said "Today (September 9, 2006) is my first day on Wikipedia; hope it isn't also my last." I think an indef and a checkuser is in order here. --Rory096 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and took care of the first part. --InShaneee 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when CBDunkerson reverted and protected Vicente Fox to its current version, the version he used had vandalism on it. Would an admin please remove "blah blah blah" from the article? It's about midway down, try ctrl+F. Thanks. (If my talkpage wasnt protected, I wouldnt have to evade this block) freestylefrappe 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, pick an account and stick with it. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the 'blahs'... and cut the guy some slack. Now we're criticizing him for pointing out overlooked vandalism? --CBD 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm criticizing him for using an alternate account to evade a block. I'm also tired of him popping up every month or two with a different account. Mackensen (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe serious violations of the spirit and letter of Wikipedia rules are underway at the alice bailey article and talk page. I think, in fact, the whole process has broken down in this article. The forum has been hijacked by a group of editors determined to prosecute the subject of the biography as anti-Jewish. James 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with Jamesd1 that there are there are serious problems, and a worsening controversy, between the editors of the Alice Bailey article. Since Bailey did make many statements that are clearly antisemitic, some information about that in the article seems justified, and that can hardly be called hijacking because it is limited to just a small Controversies section. Kwork 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)